Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alexander v. Board of Review

September 22, 2008

JULIE A. ALEXANDER, APPELLANT,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW AND NEW JERSEY CVS PHARMACY, L.L.C., RESPONDENTS.



On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 158,906. Julie Alexander, appellant pro se.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted September 8, 2008

Before Judges R. B. Coleman and Simonelli.

Appellant Julie Alexander appeals from a Final Decision of the Board of Review (the Board) that affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's determination disqualifying her from receiving unemployment compensation benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). We affirm.

The following facts are summarized from the record. Appellant began her employment with CVS Pharmacy in February 2005. On December 24, 2006, she transferred to the CVS Pharmacy in Toms River, where she worked as a shift supervisor until July 4, 2007.

On Saturday, June 30, 2007, appellant was involved in an incident with a customer, who became upset when appellant refused his request for a rain check for twenty-four Ajax dishwashing detergents. Because the store limit was four rain checks, appellant referred the customer to the store manager, who gave the customer what he wanted. On the way out of the store, the customer saw appellant laughing and thought she was laughing at him. He became irate and said that he was going "to get [appellant]," and that "he knew a lot of people around here and she was done." The store manager called the police. The police did not file charges against the customer.

Appellant reported to work the next two days without incident. However, appellant became upset when a shift supervisor advised her that she had "smoothed things over with [the] customer," and that she "special ordered what he needed."

Appellant felt that CVS was doing nothing about the incident, and she was afraid the customer would return to the store for the items. After expressing her fear to the store manager, appellant was permitted to work in the back office.

On July 5, 2007, appellant was still upset that CVS was doing nothing about the incident. She was off that day and called the district manager, advising him that she was not comfortable returning to the store. The district manager suggested a transfer to another store. Because appellant was going on vacation on July 14, 2007, the district manager also suggested that she work at the store until then and they would discuss the transfer when she returned from vacation. Appellant agreed. However, she later changed her mind and, without notice to anyone, decided not to return to work. Later on July 5, 2007, appellant's husband returned her keys to the store and picked up her paycheck.

Prior to leaving her employment, appellant did not request a transfer or a leave of absence, which were available to her pursuant to the CVS handbook she received upon commencement of her employment. Appellant also did not contact the Human Resources Department.

Appellant applied for unemployment benefits on July 6, 2007. A deputy claims examiner held her ineligible for benefits because she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. The Appeal Tribunal affirmed, concluding that:

The claimant left her position after an argument with a customer, however continued working over the next three or four days. Options were available to the claimant to address any concerns she may have had and although she had been ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.