On appeal from Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 152,898.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges S.L. Reisner and Baxter.
Claimant Deborah Kosior appeals from an August 16, 2007 final decision of the Board of Review denying her claim for unemployment benefits. We affirm.
Following a hearing, the Appeal Tribunal issued a decision on July 3, 2007, determining that claimant, an assistant manager at a health club, had voluntarily quit her job after a disagreement with her employer. She was therefore disqualified for benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) for leaving work "voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work." The Board affirmed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal.
On this appeal, claimant contends that she left work because she was harassed after she refused to violate rules requiring that a lifeguard be on duty at the pool. She also contends that the verbal abuse to which the employer subjected her was not an isolated incident but was ongoing. She further asserts that the hearing examiner cut her off and did not let her give complete testimony at the hearing.
Our review of the agency's decision is limited to determining whether it is supported by substantial credible evidence and whether it is consistent with applicable law. See Brady v. Board of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210-11 (1997). Having read the hearing transcript, we conclude that all of claimant's appellate arguments are without merit.
This case presented a credibility determination which was within the proper purview of the hearing examiner. The claimant testified that she quit because her supervisor was verbally abusive to her. The supervisor and a witness both testified that the supervisor was not abusive; rather, claimant disagreed with some of the supervisor's sales plans and responded inappropriately to his attempts at constructive criticism. The claims examiner found the employer's witnesses more credible.
We also find no merit in claimant's assertion that she was not permitted to present her case. The examiner let the claimant testify fully. Moreover, while claimant briefly mentioned that she objected to letting customers use the pool without a lifeguard present, she did not contend that she was harassed or subjected to reprisals because of this objection.
To summarize, there is substantial credible evidence in the record to support the hearing examiner's conclusion that claimant quit her job because she had a disagreement with the supervisor over sales strategy, and not because she was harassed. See, Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 210. Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the Board's decision.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...