Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg

Incarceration is Not a Per Se Bar to Unemployment Benefits

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Mar 19, 2021 in Administrative agency actions, Judges, Standards of review, Statutory interpretation, Supreme Court of New Jersey | 0 comments

Haley v. Board of Review, ___ N.J. ___ (2021). Here are the basic facts of this appeal as Justice Solomon summarized them in his opinion for the Court in this case:

“Authorities arrested Clarence Haley for serious offenses and ordered that he be detained pretrial. One week later, Haley’s mother contacted his employer, Garden State Laboratories (Garden State), requesting on Haley’s behalf that his job be preserved. Eight weeks after that, a grand jury declined to indict Haley and the prosecutor dismissed all charges against him. In the interim, Garden State terminated Haley’s employment.

Following his release from detention, Haley filed an application for unemployment benefits. The Department of Labor and Workforce Development (Department) denied Haley’s application on the ground that Haley voluntarily left his job with Garden State without good cause attributable to work. The Appeal Tribunal, Board of Review, and Appellate Division affirmed the Department’s decision. “

The Supreme Court reversed by a 6-1 vote. In outlining the standard of review, Justice Solomon stated that the Court will “defer to an agency’s interpretation of both a statute and implementing regulation, within the sphere of the agency’s authority, unless the interpretation is plainly unreasonable.” The Court would not, however, be bound by an agency interpretation that is “contrary to legislative objectives.” Justice Solomon went on to note that the Unemployment Compensation Law, N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) (“UCL”), which disqualifies from unemployment benefits a person who “has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work,” and an implementing regulation, N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(e)(10), which provides that “[a]n individual’s separation from employment shall be reviewed as a voluntarily leaving work issue where the separation was for the following reasons including, but not limited to . . . [i]ncarceration,” are to be liberally construed in favor of allowing benefits.

Citing repeated entries from the New Jersey Register, Justice Solomon observed that incarceration and the other circumstances mentioned in the regulation were not intended to “automatically result in a finding of voluntarily leaving work without good cause attributable to the work.” Instead, “the relevant circumstances” are to be given a “fact-sensitive analysis.” Justice Solomon also cited prior decisions from the Court so holding.

The regulation states that incarceration and the other situations listed are to be “reviewed as a voluntarily leaving work issue,” but incarceration “is not, in and of itself, an absolute bar to unemployment benefits.” Since the required review and fact-sensitive analysis did not occur, but the agency instead simply denied benefits, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Justice Albin, in dissent, cited the same prior opinions of the Court as had the majority. But those cases led him to conclude that there was no reason for a remand. He would have held that ” all exonerated employees who lose their jobs because of their pretrial detention are entitled to unemployment benefits under the UCL. That holding would advance the socially remedial purposes of the UCL rather than leave the employees doubly victimized–first by a wrongful detention that causes their unemployment and then by a government indifferent to their financial distress.” But that reasoning did not persuade the majority.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Appendix Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Patty Shwartz Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto Justice Walter Timpone Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress