New Jersey Employment Lawyers Blog

NEW JERSEY BILL LOOKS TO FINALLY DEFINE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “SIMPLE MISCONDUCT” AND “SEVERE MISCONDUCT” IN NEW JERSEY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW

November 30, 2012 | Smith Eibeler LLC

In 2010, Governor Christie and the New Jersey state legislature revised New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law to include a new “severe misconduct” standard to disqualify certain employees from receiving unemployment benefits. Because of the ambiguity of the statutory revisions to the revised law, New Jersey unemployment lawyers, claims examiners, employers and employees have been left without clear guidance as the difference between being terminated for “severe misconduct” versus the “simple misconduct.”

The revised New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law did not change the definition of simple misconduct. Simple misconduct is defined as actions that are improper, intentional, connected with one’s work, malicious and within the applicant’s control and is either a deliberate violation of his or her employer’s rules or a disregard to standards of behavior that the employer has the right to expect of the applicant. A simple misconduct disqualification will prevent an applicant from receiving unemployment benefits for the week of the termination and the subsequent seven weeks.

The major change contained in the revised legislation was to include a new “severe misconduct” category for disqualification of unemployment benefits. Under the revised law, being terminated for “severe misconduct” will disqualify a claimant from receiving unemployment benefits indefinitely or until he or she becomes re-employed, works for four weeks, earns at least six times their weekly benefit amount and is terminated from that employment due to no fault of their own. The problem with the enactment of the new “severe misconduct” standard is that it is completely void of a definition of what constitutes “severe misconduct.” Instead, the revised statute only sets forth “examples” of “severe misconduct” that include the following: repeated violations of an employer’s rule or policy, repeated lateness or absences after the applicant receives a written warning from their employer, falsification of records, physical assault or threats that do not constitute gross misconduct, misuse of benefits or sick time, abuse of leave, theft of company property, excessive use of drugs/alcohol on the job, theft of time, or where the behavior is malicious and deliberate but is not considered gross misconduct.

Being Told of Likely Termination Is Not Considered Good Cause to Quit and Receive New Jersey Unemployment Benefits

November 15, 2012 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed the Board of Review’s decision denying claimant, Ms. Nzinga Jackson, New Jersey unemployment benefits, finding she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. In Ms. Jackson’s initial hearing, the Deputy Director found that Ms. Jackson’s resignation from her position because her union representative told her she would be laid off from work did not constitute voluntarily leaving for good cause attributable to the work. Ms. Jackson appealed the Deputy’s determination. The Appeal Tribunal and subsequently the Board of Review affirmed the Deputy’s decision.

In the case, Jackson v. Board of Review, Ms. Jackson worked for Verizon New Jersey, Inc. (“Verizon”) from February 25, 2008 through September 4, 2010 as a customer service representative. Ms. Jackson accepted a voluntary severance package when her union representative informed her that she would most likely be laid off in the future because of her lack of seniority. Based on that information, Ms. Jackson accepted the severance package and resigned. Ms. Jackson did not confirm that she was going to be laid off with Human Resources or any other Verizon representative. In fact, Verizon did not lay off any employees because an “overwhelming” number of employees voluntary accepted the separation package.

Affirming the Deputy’s initial determination denying Ms. Jackson’s benefits, the Appeal Tribunal rejected Ms. Jackson’s argument that she did not leave work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. The Appeal Tribunal stated that acceptance of a voluntary severance package is a valid reason for leaving the job, however it is a personal reason and is not connected to the work itself. During the appeal hearing, the customer service manager testified that Ms. Jackson was not under any direct threat of being laid off if she did not accept the package and continuing work was still available at the time she resigned. Ms. Jackson alleged that she would have been laid off in May 2011, approximately nine (9) months after her voluntary resignation.

Employee Required to Repay New Jersey Emergency Unemployment Compensation Benefits

October 15, 2012 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed the Board of Review’s decision requiring claimant, Anthony M. Cibik, to refund extended Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) received, totaling $14,600.

In the case, Cibik v. Board of Review, Mr. Cibik worked for a company that was acquired by HDR, Inc. (HDR). Mr. Cibik worked for HDR for about one and a half years until his position was terminated in August 2009. Initially, Mr. Cibik worked in HDR’s New Jersey location. Around June or July 2008, Mr. Cibik relocated and was transferred to an HDR location in Oregon. He worked at the Oregon location from that time up until his termination.

Upon his termination, Mr. Cibik applied for unemployment benefits in New Jersey. He was found eligible for unemployment benefits in New Jersey because most of his wages during his employment with HDR were from working at the New Jersey location. Mr. Cibik received a total of twenty six (26) weeks of unemployment benefits. Mr. Cibik then received New Jersey EUC benefits from February 20, 2010 to August 7, 2010 totaling $14,600. However, Mr. Cibik was entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits from Oregon starting on February 10, 2010. Mr. Cibik was unaware of his eligibility to receive such unemployment benefits in Oregon at the time he filed for New Jersey EUC benefits. On August 18, 2010, Mr. Cibik received a letter from the Director of the New Jersey Division of Unemployment Compensation requesting refund of all monies received through New Jersey EUC.

Employee Disqualified from Receiving Unemployment Benefits for Failing to Adhere to Employer’s Call Out Procedure

September 15, 2012 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed a Board of Review’s decision denying claimant, Mr. John M. Custin, from receiving unemployment benefits, finding that he engaged in misconduct connected with the work. Mr. Custin was found eligible for unemployment benefits in the initial hearing however, his employer appealed. The Appeal Tribunal reversed the initial determination finding Mr. Custin eligible for benefits and found that Mr. Custin was disqualified. The Board of Review affirmed that decision.

In the case, Custin v. Board of Review, Mr. Custin worked for Walmart Stores Inc. (“Walmart”) from April 11, 2008 through April 26, 2010 as a sales associate. Mr. Custin did not report to work on April 17, 19, 21, 22, and 23 because of pain in his legs that rendered him unable to get out of bed. Walmart’s policy required employees to call an employee hotline and get a verification number as proof that the employee followed the correct procedure to call out of work. Mr. Custin asserted that he did call the hotline but was unable to get a verification number because the hotline was not working properly.

Mr. Custin was first found eligible for unemployment benefits on May 13, 2010, however, Walmart appealed that determination. During the appeal hearing, Ms. Beverley Shuck, Mr. Custin’s former manager, testified that Mr. Custin was terminated because he was a “no call, no show,” on April 17, 19, 21, 22, and 23. Ms. Shuck testified that employees were fully aware of the call out procedure. Ms. Shuck also testified that Mr. Custin had called out in the past, using the correct procedure however, when she asked him why he did not call out in this instance, he stated “that his legs hurt and he figured if he couldn’t walk he couldn’t work.” Ms. Shuck further testified that employees who were absent more than three days were required to provide a doctor’s note pursuant to Walmart’s leave of absence policy. Mr. Custin denied being aware of such policy.

NEW JERSEY COURT DENIES EMPLOYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN AGE DISCRMINATION CASE

August 15, 2012 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied defendants motion for summary judgment in favor of the employee. The court held that that the Plaintiff employee established a prima facie case of age discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) finding ambiguity in the terms of his termination and defendants different reason for termination in summary judgment raised genuine issues of material facts and potential pretext for discrimination. Although the Court concluded there was no direct evidence of age discrimination, the Court used the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis to determine that defendant’s stated non-discriminatory reason for Plaintiff’s termination could be a pretext for age discrimination in violation of the NJLAD.

In Buchholz v. Victor Printing Inc., the Plaintiff, Mr. Richard Buchholz worked at Victor Printing Inc. as a pressman from June 1986 through 2006. In 2006, Victor Printing reduced Mr. Buchholz’ hours to three days a week claiming that there was less work available for Mr. Buchholz because he was not trained on the new multi-color press machines that Victor Printing had acquired. Following the reduction in hours, Plaintiff accepted a full time job as a driver and his compensation remained the same at $17.50 per hour. He was then 63 years old. In 2008, Mr. Buchholz survived a lay off in which eight other Victor Printing employees were terminated.

A series of incidents occurred in the five months preceding Mr. Buchholz’ termination involving complaints from individuals who came in contact with Mr. Buchholz while he was driving the Victor Printing van. An individual called Victor Printing and complained about an encounter he had with Mr. Buchholz where Mr. Buchholz confronted the driver about his driving and got out of the van to see if it had been hit. Another individual called and complained Mr. Buchholz had cut him off while exiting the New Jersey Turnpike nearly causing an accident. A customer also complained that Mr. Buchholz had inappropriately complained about Victor Printing when Mr. Buchholz told the customer the boxes were too heavy and Victor Printing never sent anyone to help him. On October 15, 2009, the day before Mr. Buchholz’ termination, Mr. Buchholz hit a parked truck belonging to a large client of Victor Printing, Edmunds Direct Mail. The truck and the Victor Printing van were damaged and Mr. Buchholz failed to report the incident to Victor Printing or to Edmunds Direct Mail.

QUITING WORK DUE TO DISSATISFACTION WITH COMPENSATION DISQUALIFIES CLAIMANT FROM RECEIVING NEW JERSEY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

July 30, 2012 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed the Board of Review’s decision denying claimant, Ms. Samantha Monday, from receiving unemployment benefits because she left her employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. Ms. Monday was denied unemployment benefits in the initial hearing. However, on appeal, the Deputy determined that being paid less than the national average rate of pay for similar work constituted cause attributable to the work and awarded unemployment benefits. The employer appealed the Deputy’s award of benefits and the Appeal Tribunal concluded that the employer’s failure to give Ms. Monday a raise immediately upon her request, absent a contractual obligation, did not support a claim for unemployment benefits for voluntarily leaving employment with good cause attributable to the work. The Board of Review and the Appellate Division subsequently affirmed that determination.

In the case, Monday v. Board of Review, Ms. Monday began her employment with Mohn’s Florist as a floral designer from May 2004 through May 2009. Ms. Monday also became the shop’s retail manager during the course of her employment. Ms. Monday claimed that she left her job because she needed to make at least $22 per hour and spoke with the owners at least five times regarding her dissatisfaction with her rate of pay. Ms. Monday demanded a raise from Ms. Cochrane, co-owner of Mohn’s Florist on the day she left her employment. Ms. Cochrane informed Ms. Monday she would have to consult with her husband (the other owner of Mohn’s Florist) over the weekend. When Ms. Monday did not receive an immediate response, she cleared her belongings and left.

In support of her claim that she was entitled to unemployment benefits, Ms. Monday asserted that she was assured she would receive an increase in pay and knew that she was underpaid because of “some averages” she found online and knowledge of the wages of other floral designers she knew personally. Mohn’s Florist disputed Ms. Monday’s allegations claiming Ms. Monday would have received the average pay for the Edison, NJ area, which at the time was $15.35 per hour. Additionally, Mohn’s Florist stated that Ms. Monday was given raises and bonuses in May of each year, and occasionally, also in December, dependent upon business performance. The Appellate Division found that because Mohn’s Florist only asked for the weekend before responding to Ms. Monday’s request for a raise, Ms. Monday in fact left her employment without good cause attributable to the work and was not entitled to unemployment benefits.

Appellate Division Affirms Award for Retaliatory Discharge in Violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Despite Finding there was No Discrimination on the Basis of Race

July 13, 2012 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed a trial court’s judgment awarding plaintiff, Mr. Anthony Onuoha, a total of $1,092,424.25 in damages, attorneys’ fees and costs on his claim for discrimination on the basis of race and retaliatory discharge in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”).

In this case, Onuoha v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Mr. Onuoha began his employment with Roche Molecular Systems (“Roche”) in February 2004 as a scientist, validating Roche diagnostic test kits used to screen blood for infectious diseases. Mr. Onuoha is an African-American male and was originally hired at Roche through a staffing agency as a temporary employee. In June 2004, Mr. Onuoha applied for an open position at Roche as a senior scientist. Mr. Onuoha accepted the position at the $75k annual salary and began working with the production validation team. He was the only African American working within that group.

In February 2005, Mr. Onuoha received a raise of 4.75% due to a rating of “3” on his annual performance review, which signified he had fully performed his employment objectives. Soon thereafter, Mr. Onuoha discovered that employees within the production validation team hired after him were being paid higher salaries and that new hires at his level were usually paid $88,500. Based on this information, Mr. Onuoha complained about his salary and requested a raise. His request was subsequently denied.

New Jersey Court Vacates and Remands Decision Disqualifying Employee From Receiving Unemployment Benefits for Failing to Provide Adequate Documentation of Familial Relationship with Deceased Grandfather

June 27, 2012 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently vacated a decision rendered by the Board of Review disqualifying the claimant from receiving New Jersey unemployment benefits. The Appellate Division directed that further proceedings concerning the claimant’s eligibility for unemployment benefits be conducted in order to determine the relationship between the claimant and the deceased man that the claimant claimed to be his biological grandfather. In addition, the Appellate Division found it necessary to further develop facts surrounding the employer’s policy on documentation of absences.

The Board of Review had previously found the claimant disqualified for New Jersey unemployment benefits when claimant’s attendance of his grandfather’s funeral caused him to exceed employer’s attendance point program resulting in his termination. The Appellate Division found that the ambiguous nature of the evidence presented as to claimant’s familial relationship to the deceased and the employer’s policy on documentation of absences made it impossible to reach a final decision without further proceedings.

In this matter, Regis v. Board of Review, the claimant, Mr. Cleveland M. Regis, worked as a shipping clerk for five years. In November 2010, Mr. Regis requested leave to attend a funeral with his mother. Mr. Regis claimed that the decedent was his grandfather and was asked by his employer to provide the obituary upon his return. At the time his leave was approved, Mr. Regis was within the ten points permitted in his employer’s attendance point program. Upon Mr. Regis’ return to work, his employer requested additional written documentation from Mr. Regis because neither Mr. Regis nor his mother were mentioned anywhere in the obituary. Mr. Regis explained to his employer that he was left out of the obituary purposely by a disgruntled aunt, no other documentary evidence existed and that he “did not want to put his family business out there.” In lieu of the requested additional written documents that Mr. Regis claimed did not exist, Mr. Regis provided his employer with names and telephone numbers of family members who could confirm his familial relationship to the decedent. There was no evidence on the record that the employer contacted these individuals before the employer terminated Mr. Regis for exceeding the ten points allowed in the attendance point program. Mr. Regis’ only exceeded the allotted points because his employer retracted his approval of the leave requested to attend the funeral.

Court Finds No Need to Request Accommodation For Overall Access to Public Facilities Before Filing Suit under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

June 14, 2012 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently reversed a decision of the Law Division finding that a plaintiff bringing a New Jersey Law Against Discrimination public accommodation disability discrimination claim asserting a generalized lack of access need not make a prior request for assistance or a reasonable accommodation. The court previously found that a request for assistance/accommodation from the public facility was necessary to sustain a public accommodation disability discrimination claim alleging overall lack of access. The Court disagreed and found that Plaintiff’s failure to make such a request does not negate the ongoing obligation placed on owners of places of public accommodation to ensure that all persons, including those with disabilities, can gain access.

In Lasky v. Highstown, the Plaintiff Mr. Gregory Lasky, was not able to access several public buildings and facilities during his frequent visits to Highstown, New Jersey because the facilities (including buildings, sidewalks, and parking facilities) were not built to accommodate him as a paraplegic. Mr. Lasky filed a claim of public accommodation disability discrimination under the LAD which was dismissed because the court found he failed to request assistance or an accommodation prior to filing his lawsuit.

In reviewing the lower court’s ruling, the Appellate Division looked to the legislative history of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Court specifically distinguished situations where the plaintiff brings a claim alleging lack of overall access from those where plaintiff alleges a lack of specific adaptations necessary to accommodate that person’s particular disability. Cases brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination for lack of overall access to places of public accommodation do not require advance notice and/or a specific request for accommodation. Therefore, under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, Mr. Lasky would be able to sustain a public accommodation disability discrimination claim where Highstown failed to provide him access to sidewalks, the library, the municipal hall, the Army Navy Memorial and parking as a disabled paraplegic (N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49). In contrast under Title II of the Americans with Disability Act, a plaintiff may be required to request an accommodation prior to filing a suit if there is a particularized failure to accommodate as opposed to a general one. However, even in particularized claims, plaintiff will not be required to make a prior request if the need for accommodation is obvious due to the nature of the person’s disability.

Claimant Not Required to Repay Unemployment Compensation Benefits Improperly Paid to Him

May 18, 2012 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently reversed a decision of the Appeal Tribunal and Board of Review finding the claimant was not liable to refund improperly paid unemployment benefits in the amount $24,676. The Appeal Tribunal and Board of Review previously found that the claimant’s receipt of unemployment benefits were invalid because New Jersey unemployment benefits law prohibits the claimant from included his elected position in the base period to determine his eligibility for benefits. The Court disagreed that based upon non-fraudulent nature of the overpayment of the unemployment benefits, the claimant should not be required to repay the unemployment benefits he collected in the amount of $24,676.

In Eckensberger v. Board of Review, the claimant Mr. Dale Eckensberger, Sr. worked as an elected paid fire commissioner in the Township of Woodbridge (Woodbridge) from March 2005 through March 2008. Mr. Eckensberger simultaneously worked as a janitor at Iseling Chemical Hook & Ladder Co. until February 2008. On May 11, 2008, Mr. Eckensberger filed for unemployment compensation benefits, was found eligible for benefits without disqualification and received such benefits from May 17, 2008 to March 20, 2010. Mr. Eckensberger established a regular base year for his benefits from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007, taking into account both his work as a Woodbridge fire commissioner and as a janitor for Iseling Chemical Hook & Ladder Co. However, during that one-year period, he only worked for Iseling eight weeks and earned a total of $3374. On September 22, 2009, Mr. Eckensberger filed for Social Security disability benefits and was deemed disabled on August 1, 2009, eligible to receive disability benefits starting January 2010.

Woodbridge appealed the Board’s decision as to Mr. Eckensberger’s unemployment benefits on November 21, 2009. The Appeal Tribunal found that under New Jersey’s Unemployment Compensation Law (N.J.S.A. 43: 21-1 to 24.30), a claimant’s employment as an elected official could not be considered in a determination for unemployment benefits. On October 27, 2010, Mr. Eckensberger’s unemployment claim was deemed invalid because his position as an elected Woodbridge fire commissioner had been considered in the determination. The Director of the Division of Unemployment Compensation issued a request for refund in the amount of $24,676.