SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4664-17T4

CHRISTINE BERTOLINI,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

and HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Respondents.

__________________________

Submitted August 13, 2019 – Decided August 20, 2019

Before Judges Messano and Natali.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of 

Labor, Docket No. 143,577.

Christine Bertolini, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Board of Review (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Aaron J. Creuz, 

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-4664-17T4

Respondent Hopewell Township Board of Education 

has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Christine Bertolini worked as a "one-on-one" teacher's aide for the 

Hopewell Township Board of Education (BOE) from October 17, 2016 through 

January 19, 2018. Bertolini resigned in writing on January 21, 2018, claiming 

she was subjected to "constant verbal and emotional abuse and taunting" during 

the prior year "because of [her] efforts in protecting a child with special needs 

from being emotionally abused and overlooked in his education[.]" The Deputy 

Director determined Bertolini was eligible for benefits. The BOE appealed, and 

the Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) conducted a telephonic hearing, at which 

Bertolini, Stephanie Kuntz, the Business Administrator and BOE Secretary, 

School Superintendent Meghan Lammersen, and Assistant Principal John 

Ogbin, testified.

During the 2016-17 school year, Bertolini was assigned to a student, C.B., 

who is autistic.1 Bertolini said she reported to others how C.B. was "ignore[d]

. . . [and] pass[ed] over" by the classroom teacher. In March 2017, she and C.B 

 

1 We use the child's initials to maintain confidentiality. C.B.'s mother, Cr.B.,

briefly testified at the hearing before the Tribunal. She said that other staff 

members to whom her son was assigned were "targeted" like Bertolini. 

However, Cr.B. admitted she had not witnessed any of this conduct.
3

A-4664-17T4

were moved to another classroom with a different teacher, "[a]nd everything was 

great with that teacher." Bertolini moved to another classroom, with a different 

teacher and different student, for the 2017-18 school year. Nevertheless, she 

claimed she was "taunted" on daily basis, "laughed at," and whenever she 

"walk[ed] in a room, somebody walk[ed] out." School personnel failed to 

address her concerns, and she became the subject of false complaints about her 

performance. 

Citing "the hostile work environment . . . [she had] repeatedly reported to 

[Lammersen] . . . Ogbin" and others, Bertolini resigned. Although Bertolini said 

the hostile work environment adversely affected her health, she did not produce 

any medical evidence supporting that assertion. 

Kuntz testified she was unaware of Bertolini's "hostile work environment" 

claims until she received the resignation letter. Bertolini acknowledged never 

sending any complaints to Kuntz. Lammersen also denied knowledge and 

testified that Bertolini was assigned to another student for the 2017-18 school 

year in the usual course, because "the instructional aides are reassigned to 

different students based on scheduling needs. They're never placed with the 

. . . same student year after year." Lammersen was "shock[ed]" to receive 

Bertolini's letter of resignation. Ogbin was aware of only one complaint 
4

A-4664-17T4

Bertolini made in an email dated September 25, 2017. That complaint dealt with 

a teacher's criticism of Bertolini's supervision of a child on the school 

playground. 

The Tribunal concluded Bertolini's contention of being taunted because of 

her support for C.B. was "irrelevant," because Bertolini was no longer assigned 

to the student after the 2016-17 school year, although she "ke[pt] herself 

involved in the happenings of the student even after she was taken out of the 

classroom with the student." It also found that Bertolini never "took her specific 

personal concerns to the employer prior to her resignation letter to afford them 

the opportunity to rectify her situation." The Tribunal concluded Bertolini's 

reasons for resigning were insufficient, and she failed to provide any proof of a 

medical condition caused by or aggravated by the workplace. It concluded 

Bertolini "left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to [the] work." 

The Board affirmed the Tribunal's findings and conclusion, and this appeal 

followed.

Bertolini argues that the Tribunal failed to consider evidence she offered 

to support her claim and erred in accepting "conflicting statements" offered by 

the BOE. We disagree and affirm.
5

A-4664-17T4

"The judicial capacity to review administrative agency decisions is 

limited." Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). "[I]n reviewing 

the factual findings made in an unemployment compensation proceeding, the 

test is not whether [we] would come to the same conclusion if the original 

determination was [ours] to make, but rather whether the factfinder could 

reasonably so conclude upon the proofs." Ibid. (first alteration in original) 

(quoting Charatan v. Bd. of Review, Dep't of Labor, 200 N.J. Super. 74, 79 (App. 

Div. 1985)). "If the Board's factual findings are supported 'by sufficient credible 

evidence, [we] are obliged to accept them.'" Ibid. (quoting Self v. Bd. of 

Review, Dep't of Labor & Indus., 91 N.J. 453, 459 (1982)). Only if the Board's 

action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable should it be disturbed. Ibid. 

N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) disqualifies an individual from receiving 

unemployment benefits for a period if "the individual has left work voluntarily 

without good cause attributable to such work." "In applying [N.J.S.A.] 43:21-

5(a), a court must 'differentiate between (1) a voluntary quit with good cause 

attributable to the work and (2) a voluntary quit without good cause attributable 

to the work.'" Brady, 152 N.J. at 213-14 (quoting Self, 91 N.J. at 457). Although 

"good cause" is undefined, the Court has stated:

The test of "ordinary common sense and prudence"

must be utilized to determine whether an employee's 
6

A-4664-17T4

decision to leave work constitutes good cause. Such 

cause "must be compelled by real, substantial and 

reasonable circumstances not imaginary, trifling and 

whimsical ones." A claimant has the "responsibility to 

do whatever is necessary and reasonable in order to 

remain employed."

[Id. at 214 (citations omitted).]

"Mere dissatisfaction with working conditions which are not shown to be 

abnormal or do not affect health, does not constitute good cause for leaving work 

voluntarily." Domenico v. Bd. of Review, Dep't of Labor & Indus., 192 N.J. 

Super. 284, 288 (App. Div. 1983) (quoting Medwick v. Bd. of Review, Dep't of 

Labor & Indus., 69 N.J. Super. 338, 345 (App. Div. 1961)). The claimant bears 

the burden of proving good cause. Brady, 152 N.J. at 218.

Bertolini contends that the Tribunal, and, in turn, the Board, ignored 

evidence she provided that documented the taunting and harassment she 

endured. It is fair to say the documents supplied in appellant's appendix 

demonstrate a tense relationship between Bertolini and the teacher assigned to 

C.B. during the 2016-17 school year. Bertolini testified, however, "everything 

was great" after she moved to another teacher's classroom in March 2017. 

Ogbin and Kuntz were copied on a June 2017 email from this successor 

teacher that demonstrates her concerns about other staff members' "obsession" 

with C.B., his aide, which we assume was Bertolini, and the successor teacher's 
7

A-4664-17T4

"classro[o]m activities, . . . procedures, . . . conduct and responsibilities as a 

teacher[.]"

However, the record contains only two emails sent by Bertolini during the 

2017-18 school year. One was the September 2017 email Ogbin referenced in 

his testimony. It does not mention C.B., reflects Bertolini's request for 

"clarification and guidance" regarding her duties with her new student and 

inquires whether, given prior false reports by "a few teachers," she was the 

subject of a complaint from a teacher that would be recorded in her "performance 

file." 

Another, from December 2017, deals with Bertolini's dissatisfaction with

the processing of her workers' compensation claim. In that email, Bertolini 

complains about having been placed with a student whose violent tendencies 

were known. The email was not directed to Kuntz, Lammersen or Ogbin. 

In short, there is little in the record, except for Bertolini's self-serving 

testimony, that demonstrates more than her "[m]ere dissatisfaction with working 

conditions" immediately prior to her January 2018 resignation. Domenico, 192 

N.J. Super. at 288. Additionally, her claims that the stress of the workplace 

caused her adverse medical consequences were unsubstantiated. N.J.A.C. 

12:17-9.3(d) provides that "[w]hen an individual leaves work for health or 
8

A-4664-17T4

medical reasons, medical certification shall be required to support a finding of 

good cause attributable to [such] work." Absent such unequivocal medical 

evidence, the decision to terminate her employment is deemed to be without 

good cause attributable to the work. Wojcik v. Bd. of Review, Dep't of Labor 

& Indus., 58 N.J. 341, 344 (1971). 

Bertolini also contends the Board credited the contradictory testimony of 

the BOE's representatives regarding their lack of knowledge of any "hostile 

work environment." However, the Tribunal and the Board found those 

representatives to be credible. "The appellate court must also give due regard 

to the opportunity of the one who heard the witnesses to judge their credibility." 

Logan v. Bd. of Review, Dep't of Labor, 299 N.J. Super. 346, 348 (App. Div. 

1997) (citing Jackson v. Concord Co., 54 N.J. 113, 117 (1969)).

Affirmed.