NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted November 14, 2013
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 353, 272.
Charlotte Gebhardt, appellant pro se.
John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review, Department of Labor (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Peter H. Jenkins, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Respondent Thetis, Inc. has not filed a brief.
Before Judges Simonelli and Haas.
Appellant Charlotte Gebhardt appeals from the May 7, 2012 final decision of the Board of Review (Board), which affirmed the December 6, 2011 decision of the Appeal Tribunal that appellant was disqualified from receiving benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) as of August 7, 2011, because she left her employment at respondent Thetis, Inc. (Thetis) voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. We affirm.
From December 24, 1984, to July 22, 2011, Gebhardt was employed as a waitress at a diner owned by Thetis. On July 22, 2011, "Ana, " a temporary hostess, questioned Gebhardt about food Gebhardt had served to a customer. Ana became angry when the customer confronted her, and yelled at Gebhardt to "get out, get out of here!" Gebhardt felt Ana "was very rude" to her, so she left the diner. Thereafter, she never contacted her employer to inquire about her job status, and never returned to work. Ana never told Gebhardt she was terminated, but Gebhardt assumed this because her employer never called her.
Gebhardt applied for unemployment benefits, effective July 17, 2011. The Deputy Director found her disqualified for benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) because she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. The Appeal Tribunal found her disqualified for benefits for the following reason:
By the claimant's own admission, she did not know she was terminated when the hostess told her to get out. The claimant assumed she was discharged when the employer did not call her at home afterward. However, she did not contact the owners to discuss the incident or inquire about her employment status. The claimant did not present evidence to indicate that she was actually terminated. Therefore, her contention that she was discharged is rejected.
The claimant initiated her separation when she did not return to the job or contact the employer after 07/22/2011. The claimant left the job without good cause attributable to such work. Therefore, [s]he is disqualified for ...