Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2333-14T3
06-24-2016
N.E.I. JEWELMASTERS OF NEW JERSEY, INC., Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and THERESA C. KAZMIERCZAK, Respondents.
Charles I. Epstein, attorney for appellant. Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Anthony DiLello, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondent Theresa C. Kazmierczak has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Hoffman and Leone. On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 014,029. Charles I. Epstein, attorney for appellant. Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Anthony DiLello, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondent Theresa C. Kazmierczak has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
N.E.I. Jewelmasters of New Jersey, Inc. (NEI) appeals from the October 30, 2014 final agency decision of the Department of Labor Board of Review (Board), affirming an Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) finding that claimant Theresa C. Kazmierczak was eligible for unemployment benefits. Because NEI failed to prove that Kazmierczak was an independent contractor under the three-prong standard of N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(6) (the ABC Test), and failed to prove that Kazmierczak left voluntarily without good cause, we affirm.
Kazmierczak worked for NEI in sales and marketing, beginning in March 2010. In this capacity, she earned 15 dollars per hour plus a 2.5% commission on sales over $250,000. She worked a minimum of twenty hours per week, and her hours increased when there was extra work available. NEI controlled Kazmierczak's schedule and workload. Kazmierczak was precluded from working for other jewelers and was required to perform her work on NEI's premises. She filed her taxes utilizing 1099 forms issued to her by NEI.
In November 2013, Kazmierczak requested a pay raise from her superiors, Katie Diamond and John Nansi, as her work responsibilities had increased. According to Kazmierczak, Diamond appeared visibly angry and annoyed when discussing her request. Kazmierczak did not state that she would leave if the raise was denied. Nansi and Diamond promised Kazmierczak they would consider her request. Two weeks later, Diamond rejected her request. Furthermore, Diamond terminated Kazmierczak's employment, and replaced her with an intern.
Kazmierczak filed her claim for unemployment benefits on December 13, 2013. On February 21, 2014, the Deputy for the Director of the Division of Unemployment Insurance (Deputy) mailed a determination to Kazmierczak, informing her that she was disqualified for benefits on the ground that she had left NEI voluntarily without good cause attributable to her job. Kazmierczak appealed to the Tribunal.
On May 12, 2014, the Tribunal conducted a telephonic hearing in which Kazmierczak testified; NEI neither appeared before the Tribunal, nor requested a postponement. After hearing Kazmierczak's testimony, the Tribunal reversed the decision of the Deputy, determining that Kazmierczak did not leave the job voluntarily without good cause, and therefore was not disqualified for benefits. The Tribunal concluded that Kazmierczak was "not an independent contractor," noting that she held no professional licenses or permits, and worked only for NEI, under its "direction and control"; moreover, Kazmierczak "did not have her own business cards or telephone number" and "was not allowed to hire anyone to assist her." Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that "the employer advised [Kazmierczak] that it would be best if she no longer worked there," and indicated that she "would be replaced with an intern."
NEI appealed to the Board and moved to supplement the record on May 21, 2014. The motion was denied. On October 30, 2014, the Board affirmed the Tribunal's decision, concluding: "Since [NEI] was given the opportunity to appear at the Appeal Tribunal hearing and as good cause for failing to appear or request an adjournment has not been presented, there is no ground for further hearing."
On appeal, NEI argues that the Board erred in finding that Kazmierczak was an employee rather than an independent contractor under the ABC Test, as well as in finding that Kazmierczak did not leave the job voluntarily without good cause. We disagree with these contentions.
Our scope of review of an agency decision is limited. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (citing Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980)). In challenging an agency conclusion, the claimant carries a substantial burden of persuasion, and the determination of the administrative agency carries a presumption of correctness. Gloucester Cnty. Welfare Bd. v. N.J. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 93 N.J. 384, 390-91 (1983).
Further, "[w]e are obliged to defer to the Board when its factual findings are based on 'sufficient credible evidence' in the record." Lourdes Med. Ctr. of Burlington Cnty. v. Bd. of Review, 197 N.J. 339, 367 (2009) (quoting Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997)). We also accord substantial deference to the agency's interpretation of a statute it is charged with enforcing. Bd. of Educ. of Neptune v. Neptune Twp. Educ. Ass'n, 144 N.J. 16, 31 (1996). We overturn an agency determination only if it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, unsupported by substantial credible evidence as a whole, or inconsistent with the enabling statute or legislative policy. Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc., 100 N.J. 57, 71-72 (1985) (citing Gloucester Cnty. Welfare Bd., supra, 93 N.J. at 391).
"The New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law (UCL), N.J.S.A. 43:21-1 to -71[,] is a remedial act, the primary objective of [which] . . . is to provide a cushion for the workers of New Jersey against the shocks and rigors of unemployment." Phila. Newspapers, Inc. v. Bd. of Review, 397 N.J. Super. 309, 318 (App. Div. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), certif. denied, 195 N.J. 420 (2008). Because of the statute's remedial nature, "its provisions [are to be] construed liberally, permitting a statutory employer-employee relationship to be found even though that relationship may not satisfy common-law principles." Id. at 319 (quoting Carpet Remnant Warehouse v. N.J. Dep't of Labor, 125 N.J. 567, 581 (1991)).
The UCL carries a "presumption . . . by statute that all services performed by an individual for remuneration constitutes employment for purposes of the UCL," unless the services satisfy an exception. Ibid. The relevant exception here involves the three-prong ABC Test used for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor:
Services performed by an individual for remuneration shall be deemed to be employment subject to this chapter . . . unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of the division that:
(A) Such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such service, both under his contract of service and in fact; and
(B) Such service is either outside the usual course of the business for which such service is performed, or that such service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed; and
(C) Such individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.
[N . J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(6).]
Generally, Prong A is referred to as the "control test," Prong B as the "course-of-business or location-of-work test," and Prong C as the "independent-business test." Phila. Newspapers, supra, 397 N.J. Super. at 320. The party challenging the classification of a worker as an employee "must prove each of the three prongs of the ABC Test." Ibid. Failure to satisfy any one of the prongs "results in an 'employment' classification." Ibid. (quoting Carpet Remnant, supra, 125 N.J. Super. at 581). The ABC Test requires a fact-sensitive analysis of the substance, not the form, of the working relationship. Ibid.
In Philadelphia Newspapers, we reviewed an unemployment claim by a "home delivery newspaper person." Id. at 312. In that case, the claimant periodically signed an "Independent Home Delivery Service Contract or Agreement," memorializing a contract for him to deliver various publications. Id. at 312-13. The contract contained multiple clauses establishing the claimant as an independent contractor. Ibid. The claimant agreed to lawfully maintain his own automobile, and use it to deliver newspapers by a set deadline. Id. at 313. He did not receive a salary, and instead received a fixed fee per newspaper delivered. Id. at 314. On appeal, we held that the newspaper company failed to prove the final prong:
[T]he record is devoid of evidence demonstrating that [the] claimant was customarily engaged in an independently established trade or activity from the mere delivery of [the company's] newspapers "at the time of rendering the service involved." [The c]laimant never engaged in delivery services prior to commencing his delivery of newspapers for [the company], nor has he engaged in similar services since his termination from employment. Moreover, on termination from employment, [the] claimant joined the ranks of the unemployed. Accordingly, Prong (C) was not satisfied.
[Id. at 323 (internal citation omitted).]
In this case, we find no occasion to interfere with the Board's decision. The record amply supports that Kazmierczak was an employee and not an independent contractor because she did not have an independently-established business. Indeed, the record leaves no doubt that NEI did not and cannot satisfy prong C of the ABC test. See State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 476, (2004) (noting, where both prongs of a two-prong test were required, there was no need to address the second prong when the first prong was not satisfied), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1145, 125 S. Ct. 2973, 162 L. Ed. 2d 898 (2005).
In the instant case, the relevant facts mirror those in Philadelphia Newspapers. It is undisputed that Kazmierczak did not work in the jewelry business beforehand, she worked solely for NEI, her termination rendered her unemployed, and she did not work in the jewelry business after her termination. If, as here, "the claimant is 'dependent on the employer, and on termination of that relationship would join the ranks of the unemployed, the [Prong (C)] standard is not satisfied.'" Phila. Newspapers, supra, 397 N.J. Super. at 323 (quoting Carpet Remnant, supra, 125 N.J. at 585-86). Satisfaction of Prong C requires a clear showing that a viable independent business exists apart from the particular contractual relationship at issue. Carpet Remnant, supra, 125 N.J. at 592. The record here contains insufficient evidence to satisfy this burden.
NEI argues that the Board erred in finding that claimant did not leave the job voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. We disagree. We have stated that "[w]hile the statute does not define 'good cause,' our courts have construed the statute to mean 'cause sufficient to justify an employee's voluntarily leaving the ranks of the employed and joining the ranks of the unemployed.'" Domenico v. Bd. of Review, 192 N.J. Super. 284, 287 (App. Div. 1983) (quoting Condo v. Bd. of Review, 158 N.J. Super. 172, 174 (App. Div. 1978)). "In scrutinizing an employee's reason for leaving, the test is one of ordinary common sense and prudence. . . . [I]t is the employee's responsibility to do what is necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed." Id. at 288 (citations omitted). If the employee voluntarily quits for personal reasons, benefits are not available. See Self v. Bd. of Review, 91 N.J. 453, 458 (1982) (holding that difficulty in obtaining transportation to work was not good cause attributable to the work).
On the other hand, where the unemployment is the direct result of the employer's conduct rather than the claimant's own choice or personal decision, then, "as a matter of law, the unemployment must be seen to be attributable to the work." Gerber v. Bd. of Review, 313 N.J. Super. 37, 39 (App. Div. 1998). Here, like in Gerber, it was the employer's conduct that resulted in Kazmierczak's unemployment. The record shows that Kazmierczak requested a raise. Approximately two weeks later, Diamond not only denied her request, but also informed her that the next day would be her last day. Diamond further instructed Kazmierczak to promptly clean out her desk and informed her that an intern would replace her. Kazmierczak offered to remain until the intern was appropriately trained, but Diamond rejected the offer. In assessing her reason for leaving, the record clearly shows that Kazmierczak was terminated by Diamond.
While NEI argued in its appeal to the Board that Kazmierczak quit, NEI did not participate in the Tribunal hearing, and failed to offer the Board any excuse for not appearing. Thus, the Board was not required to credit their appellate assertions. Moreover, the record provides ample support for the Board's finding that Kazmierczak did not leave her job voluntarily without good cause attributable to her work.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION