SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0826-17T2

SABRINA MEDINA,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and

MCLOONE'S WEST ORANGE, LLC,

Respondents.

________________________________

Submitted November 28, 2018 – Decided 

Before Judges Koblitz and Mayer.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of 

Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No. 

104,736.

Krakower DiChiara LLC, attorney for appellant 

(Michael R. DiChiara, on the brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Board of Review (Melissa Dutton Shaffer, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher W. 

Weber, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 17, 2018
2

A-0826-17T2

Respondent McLoone's West Orange LLC, has not filed

a brief.

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Sabrina Medina appeals from a final agency decision of 

respondent Board of Review (Board), disqualifying her from receipt of 

unemployment benefits. We reverse. 

Medina worked as a sous-chef at respondent McLoone's West Orange 

LLC (McLoone's) from May 2013 until October 2016. On September 21, 2016, 

Medina resigned from her position based on discriminatory treatment and 

retaliation. 

About five months before Medina resigned, McLoone's hired a new 

general manager. According to Medina, the new general manager was 

excessively aggressive. Medina claimed the new general manager treated her 

differently. For example, the general manager stated she was unsure Medina 

could be trusted with workplace information. The general manager also 

suggested Medina act "bitchier" and "cuntier" to gain respect in the male 

dominated restaurant business. When Medina complained to McLoone's 

executive chef about the general manager's harassing conduct, the chef 

responded that the general manager "does not do well with other women."
3

A-0826-17T2

Around the same time, May 2016, McLoone's had a sewage back up in the 

restaurant, causing unsafe conditions and potential health risks for workers and 

customers. Medina refused to work in unsafe conditions or serve food to patrons 

under the circumstances. In a formal email, McLoone's management expressed 

disappointment in Medina's decision to forego working based on the restaurant's 

condition. 

According to Medina, because she refused to work in unsafe conditions at 

the restaurant, she was excluded from meetings, required to work erratic shifts,

and overlooked for a promotion. The McLoone's managers told Medina she did 

not receive the promotion because of her gender and young age.

Medina did not want to leave her job at McLoone's. However, the stress 

of working under harassing and retaliatory conditions became overwhelming 

and negatively impacted Medina's general health and ability to sleep. 

After she left the job, Medina filed a civil action against McLoone's,

alleging discrimination and retaliation. The civil action resolved and Medina is 

precluded from providing any further information on that matter.

Medina also applied for unemployment benefits. A deputy with the 

Department of Labor and Workforce Development (Department) disqualified 

her from collecting benefits based on a determination that she left work 
4

A-0826-17T2

voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. See N.J.S.A. 43:21-

5(a). 

Medina administratively appealed the Department's denial of 

unemployment benefits to an Appeal Tribunal. The Tribunal heard testimony 

from Medina. No one from McLoone's attended the hearing. 

The appeals examiner for the Tribunal found Medina never filed any 

formal complaints regarding her treatment by superiors at McLoone's prior to 

her resignation. In addition, the examiner did not find the comments and actions 

of the new general manager "exceeded the bounds of reason" and thus did not 

constitute harassment. Further, the examiner concluded that neither "the 

employer's refusal to commit itself to promote [Medina] nor [Medina's] 

dissatisfaction with her present position [was] good cause for leaving 

attributable to the work under the statute." In disqualifying Medina from receipt 

of benefits, the examiner wrote: 

There has been no testimony presented showing the 

relationship [between Medina and the new general 

manager] to be abnormal or to have affected a condition 

of health. Thus, mere animosity between [Medina] and 

her new general manager, whether real or imagined, 

does not constitute good cause for leaving work 

voluntarily. [Medina] left due to mere dissatisfaction 

with her working conditions which are not shown based 

upon the testimony presented to be abnormal or to have 

affected [Medina's] health[.] . . . [Medina] has an 
5

A-0826-17T2

obligation to do those things reasonably calculated to 

relieve her of the condition or complained of

circumstances. [Medina] must make reasonable efforts 

to preserve her job before she may be considered as 

justified in quitting. . . . [Medina] cannot [ ] leave work 

even if a cause which is good cause attributable to such 

work exists unless she makes a reasonable effort to 

adjust that grievance. [Medina] failed to make such 

attempts.

Medina appealed the Tribunal's determination to the Board. The Board 

summarily affirmed the Tribunal's decision, disqualifying Medina from receipt 

of benefits because she left work without good cause attributable to such work 

contrary to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). 

On appeal, Medina argues she left her job for good cause attributable to 

the work and thus qualified for benefits. Our review of an administrative 

agency's final decision is limited. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011). 

We reverse an agency's determination only if it is arbitrary, capricious, 

unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial credible evidence. Bailey v. Bd. of 

Review, 339 N.J. Super. 29, 33 (App. Div. 2001). "[I]n reviewing the factual 

findings made in an unemployment compensation proceeding, the test is not 

whether an appellate court would come to the same conclusion if the original 

determination was its to make, but rather whether the factfinder could 
6

A-0826-17T2

reasonably so conclude upon the proofs." Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 

210 (1997). 

We owe considerable deference to the Board in administering our state's 

unemployment compensation laws. Ibid. Nevertheless, based on the discrete 

facts in this case, we conclude the agency misapplied the relevant legal standards 

and acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably in rejecting Medina's claim

for unemployment benefits. 

"Good cause" is not defined in N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). However, "our courts 

have construed [the phrase] to mean 'cause sufficient to justify an employee's 

voluntarily leaving the ranks of the employed and joining the ranks of the 

unemployed.'" Ardan v. Bd. of Review, 444 N.J. Super. 576, 585 (App. Div. 

2016) (quoting Domenico v. Bd. of Review, 192 N.J. Super. 284, 287 (App. 

Div. 1983)). "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." Associated Utility Servs. v. Bd. of Review, 131 

N.J. Super. 584, 587 (App. Div. 1974) (quoting Zielinski v. Bd. of Review, 85 

N.J. Super. 46, 54 (App. Div. 1964)). "In scrutinizing an employee's reason for 

leaving, the test is one of ordinary common sense and prudence." Domenico, 

192 N.J. Super. at 288. In addition, the decision to leave employment "must be 
7

A-0826-17T2

compelled by real, substantial and reasonable circumstances not imaginary, 

trifling and whimsical ones." Brady, 152 N.J. at 214 (quoting Domenico, 192 

N.J. Super. at 288).

Acts constituting harassment, racial prejudice, and gender bias "directed 

to an employee are abnormal working conditions and constitute good cause for 

that employee to voluntarily leave her employment." Doering v. Bd. of Review, 

203 N.J. Super. 241, 246 (App. Div. 1985). In Doering, we held sexual 

harassment and racially prejudicial and gender biased comments "cannot be 

condoned in any place of employment." Id. at 246. 

Here, the appeals examiner did not find incredible Medina's testimony that 

the new general manager told her to act "bitchier" and "cuntier" to succeed as a 

female in the restaurant industry. Further, there was no testimony contradicting 

Medina being asked about her age when she interviewed for a promotion. In 

addition, it was undisputed Medina experienced abrupt shift changes and 

exclusion from meetings after she refused to work under unsanitary and unsafe

conditions. 

Having reviewed the record, the appeals examiner's decision, summarily 

affirmed by the Board, was unsupported based on the credible and 

uncontroverted evidence presented by Medina during the hearing. Medina left 
8

A-0826-17T2

the job due to a hostile work environment at McLoone's, age and gender 

discrimination, and retaliation. The working conditions experienced by Medina 

are abnormal and her decision to leave McLoone's was based on circumstances 

that were real and not imaginary.

In addition to the abnormal conditions she endured while working at 

McLoone's, Medina told the appeals examiner her health had been adversely 

affected. Medina presented uncontroverted testimony that she became stressed 

and lost sleep as a result of the working conditions at McLoone's. Yet, the 

examiner found Medina suffered no health consequences. 

We also disagree with the Board's conclusion that Medina had to take 

some action to be entitled to receipt of benefits. Medina was not required to 

take action by filing a formal grievance or complaint against McLoone's to be 

entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. See Doering, 203 N.J. Super. 

at 248. While the failure to report harassing and retaliatory conduct "may be 

relevant and probative on the bona fides of [the] claim, it certainly does not in 

and of itself disqualify [the claimant] from receiving benefits nor does it prove

that the reason [for quitting] was not sufficient to constitute 'good cause

attributable to such work.'" Id. at 248-49 (quoting Londo v. Bd. of Review, 158 

N.J. Super. 172, 175 (App. Div. 1978)). 
9

A-0826-17T2

Medina complained to McLoone's executive chef about the new general 

manager and her discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory conduct. In addition, 

Medina filed a civil action against McLoone's, alleging discrimination and 

retaliation. Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied Medina left her job 

under the "pressure of circumstances which may reasonably be viewed as having 

[been] compelled" by McLoone's discriminatory conduct and other adverse 

conditions of the job. Brady, 152 N.J. at 212-13. We reverse the Board's 

determination summarily affirming the decision of the Appeal Tribunal and 

remand the matter to the Board to determine the unemployment compensation 

benefits to be paid to Medina. 

Reversed and remanded for the Board to enter relief in favor of Medina 

consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.