SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0446-18T2

OLGA KUHARETS,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and

BOROUGH OF FORT LEE,

Respondents.

Submitted December 3, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Rose.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of 

Labor, Docket No. 142,833.

Olga Kuharets, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Board of Review (Donna Arons, Assistant 

Attorney General, of counsel; Sean P. Havern, Deputy 

Attorney General, on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

December 13, 2019
2

A-0446-18T2

Botta Angeli, LLC, attorneys for respondent Borough 

of Fort Lee (Natalia R. Angeli, on the statement in lieu 

of brief).

PER CURIAM

Claimant Olga Kuharets appeals a final decision of the Board of Review 

disqualifying her from unemployment benefits because she left her job without 

good cause attributable to the work. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). We affirm.

Kuharets was employed by the Borough of Fort Lee's public library for 

six years. An hour after her shift began on November 15, 2017, she reported her 

absence, complaining of anxiety and depression. Kuharets sought 

accommodations for those conditions and asked to change her employment from 

full to part time. She was told to provide a doctor's note. 

The next day, the note Kuharets provided from her physician stated 

Kuharets was under his care for "intractable migraines and neck pain" and 

needed "accommodations avoiding lifting, climbing stairs during the 

exa[cerb]ation of her symptoms." Because the note was at odds with her verbal 

reasons for calling out the day before, the employer requested additional medical 

information in line with her reason for calling out on November 15. Kuharets 

failed to provide that documentation, and never returned to work.
3

A-0446-18T2

In particular, Kuharets used two paid vacation days for November 16 and 

17. Her employer then suspended Kuharets, without pay, from November 20 to 

28 "due to both the late reporting of her absence [on] [November 15], and 

numerous other recent absences." Kuharets signed a settlement agreement and 

release, awarding her a $2,000 severance.1 In exchange, Kuharets resigned from 

her position effective November 30.

After a hearing in which the above facts were adduced, the Appeal 

Tribunal determined claimant's allegations "that she was confused about the 

separation process, was in danger of being fired, and that the union's legal team 

. . . forc[ed] her to sign the . . . settlement agreement and release document . . . 

lack[ed] credibility." The Appeal Tribunal elaborated:

While [claimant] was suspended for [eight] days for the 

. . . improperly reported absence, and numerous other 

recent absences, there [wa]s no written or verbal proof 

presented to show that she was to be discharged upon 

the conclusion of the suspension. Further, the language 

of the settlement agreement, which the claimant signed, 

allowed for a $2,000 severance payout, and also 

allowed the claimant [twenty-one] days to fully review 

the settlement. Clearly the claimant was financially 

motivated to sign this document. If she was [sic] 

initially confused about the whole process, it is clear 

that she had a full [three] weeks to thoroughly review 

the document prior to potentially signing the form. It 

appears highly unlikely that the claimant would have 

1

 Only the first page of the agreement was provided on appeal.
4

A-0446-18T2

been forced by the union to sign the document based 

upon this extensive timeline. Finally, while the 

claimant contends that her medical issues were caused 

by the job, this is not stated in the only medical note 

provided by her to the employer dated 11/16/17. 

The Board adopted the Appeal Tribunal's decision. This appeal followed.

In her pro se brief on appeal, Kuharets presents a single point for our 

consideration:

CLAIMANT'S LEAVING [HER] JOB IN ORDER TO 

WORK PART-TIME WHILE RECOVERING FROM 

UNDETERMINED CONSEQUENCES DUE TO 

INJURIES CONSTITUTES GOOD CAUSE 

ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE WORK AND, 

THEREFORE, CLAIMAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE 

BEEN DISQUALIFIED FOR BENEFITS.

In support of her argument, Kuharets summarily states her employer 

denied her request for part-time employment, which she sought "to improve 

working conditions to recover fully from severe trauma." Kuharets contends 

"habitual mental strain caused by unequal treatment combined with multiple 

unforeseeable physical injuries demonstrate good cause attributable to work and 

qualify [her] for benefits."

We have considered these contentions in light of the record and applicable 

legal principles, and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant 

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Pursuant to our limited 
5

A-0446-18T2

standard of review, In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011), we affirm, as did 

the Board, substantially for the reasons expressed in the Appeal Tribunal's 

cogent written decision, which "is supported by sufficient credible evidence on 

the record as a whole." R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D); see also Brady v. Bd. of Review, 

152 N.J. 197, 210-11 (1997). 

Affirmed.