Margo S. Ardan v. Board of Review, Lourdes Medical Center of Burlington County, Inc., and Alliance Healthcare (Board of Review, Department of Labor and Workforce Development)
134 A.3d 1018
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2016Background
- Appellant Margo Ardan resigned from Lourdes Medical Center on Nov. 7, 2012 after obtaining a less-physical desk job at Alliance Healthcare; she gave Lourdes a resignation letter saying she was leaving "to seek other opportunity."
- Ardan began work at Alliance on Nov. 12, 2012 but was separated after seven weeks for failing a certification; she filed for unemployment benefits on Dec. 23, 2012.
- The Deputy Director and an Appeal Tribunal found Ardan voluntarily left Lourdes without good cause attributable to the work and disqualified her under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a); her short Alliance employment did not remove the disqualification.
- On appeal to the Board, Ardan for the first time asserted a non-work-connected medical condition aggravated by Lourdes’ working conditions and submitted medical records; the Board remanded for a new hearing.
- At the new hearing Ardan admitted she never informed Lourdes of her medical condition, never requested accommodation or leave, and produced no contemporaneous medical documentation; the Appeal Tribunal again found her disqualified and the Board affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ardan quit with "good cause attributable to the work" | Ardan asserted a non-work-connected medical condition, aggravated by Lourdes’ conditions, that made continued work impossible | Board/Lourdes: Ardan never notified employer or sought accommodation; she resigned to take other employment | Held: No — failure to notify/request accommodation or afford employer opportunity to address means no good cause under N.J.A.C. 12:17‑9.3(b) |
| Whether leaving to accept other employment avoids disqualification | Ardan argued a later amendment to N.J.S.A. 43:21‑5(a) creates an exception for leaving to accept comparable employment and should apply retroactively | Board: Pre‑amendment law and regulation deem leaving to accept other work a voluntary quit without good cause | Held: Amendment not applied retroactively; Ardan disqualified under pre‑amendment law and N.J.A.C. 12:17‑9.1(e)(9) |
| Whether the 2015 statutory amendment should be applied retroactively | Ardan urged retroactive application to her 2012 resignation | Board argued new statute is prospective and retroactive application would be improper | Held: Retroactivity rejected — Legislature showed no retroactive intent, amendment not curative, and retroactive application would cause manifest injustice and upset reliance on prior law |
| Whether Board made adequate factual findings | Ardan claimed findings were inadequate given record | Board maintained record and findings supported the decision | Held: Findings supported by credible evidence and not arbitrary or capricious; no further discussion warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197 (1997) (standard for reviewing factual findings in unemployment proceedings)
- Self v. Bd. of Review, 91 N.J. 453 (1982) (deference to agency factual findings when supported by credible evidence)
- Yardville Supply Co. v. Bd. of Review, 114 N.J. 371 (1989) (employee who attempts to protect employment because of illness not deemed to have voluntarily quit)
- Domenico v. Bd. of Review, 192 N.J. Super. 284 (App. Div. 1983) (definition of "good cause" in voluntary quit context)
- James v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co., 216 N.J. 552 (2014) (two‑part test for retroactive application of statutes)