SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4382-17T4

DOROTHY MOORE,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

and BERGEN REGIONAL

MEDICAL CENTER, LP,

Respondents.

__________________________

Submitted October 17, 2019 – Decided 

Before Judges Whipple and Mawla.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of 

Labor, Docket No. 077,190.

Dorothy Moore, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Board of Review (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Alexis F. 

Fedorchak, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

October 31, 2019
2

A-4382-17T4

Respondent Bergen Regional Medical Center has not 

filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

 This matter returns after a remand to the Board of Review (Board). Claimant 

Dorothy Moore appeals from the April 17, 2018 final agency decision of the Board 

affirming the February 21, 2018 decision of an Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal), which

held claimant was ineligible for benefits from November 1, 2015, through October 

29, 2016, under N.J.S.A. 43:21-4(c)(1). We affirm.

Moore worked for Bergen Regional Medical Center as a patient account 

management representative from April 24, 2006, until September 25, 2015. She was 

a representative of the union and often walked to work because it was near her house. 

However, after death threats were leveled against Moore and her family over a 

custody dispute, she resigned her position unexpectedly and moved out of state.

Before leaving, she filed a police report.

Once settled in her new home out-of-state, Moore filed for unemployment 

benefits on November 1, 2015, and submitted a total of four job applications online 

between then and January 2016. The Deputy for the Director of the Division of 

Unemployment Insurance denied her application for unemployment benefits on 

December 3, 2015, finding Moore left work voluntarily without "good cause 

attributable to the work." 
3

A-4382-17T4

Moore appealed to the Tribunal and participated in the telephonic hearing 

conducted on January 12, 2016. At the telephonic hearing, Moore testified the 

reason she left her job was because "on September 28th, in the middle of the night" 

she, her son, and her grandchildren "packed up and . . . left [her] home" because her 

grandchildren's mother made "death threats" against her and her family after Moore's 

son, who lived with Moore, was awarded custody of the children. According to 

Moore, although the children's mother had never resided with her on a permanent 

basis, she lived with Moore for "a little more than a year off and on" before the 

children were born. The death threats were under investigation by police in her 

former New Jersey town; Moore testified that she sent a copy of the police report to 

the unemployment office, and she agreed to send another copy to the Tribunal 

examiner.

N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(j), allows the payment of benefits to individuals who resign 

from their employment "due to circumstances directly resulting from the individual 

being a victim of domestic violence as defined in" N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19. However, 

after reviewing her assertions and relying on the fact that the children's mother never 

lived with Moore on a permanent basis, the Tribunal determined that Moore did not 

qualify for benefits under subsection (j). In its decision, the Tribunal used a 

definition of a "[v]ictim of domestic violence" that predated amendments to N.J.S.A.
4

A-4382-17T4

2C:25-19(d) and determined that Moore did "not meet the qualifications of [t]he 

New Jersey Code [o]f Criminal Justice 2C:25-19(d) and [was] therefore not eligible 

for benefits under the statute." The Tribunal affirmed the determination of the 

Deputy, concluding that because Moore "left work due to personal problems which 

were neither caused by her employer nor the result of the nature of the work itself,"

Moore was disqualified under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) as she "left work voluntarily 

without good cause attributable to such work." Moore appealed to the Board and in 

a May 3, 2016 decision, the Board adopted the findings of the Tribunal and affirmed 

the Tribunal's decision. 

 We reversed and remanded because we determined Moore qualifies as a 

victim of domestic violence under the current definition contained in N.J.S.A.

2C:25-19(d). Moore v. Bd. of Review, No. A-4455-15 (App. Div. Aug. 25, 2017) 

(slip op. at 9). On remand, the Board was to consider whether the police report 

submitted to support Moore's claim was sufficient documentation as required under 

N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(j)(2), as well as to reconsider her eligibility for benefits. Moore, 

slip op. at 9. However, we took no position as to what impact the Tribunal's 

determination that Moore's work search was "academic" would have on claimant's 

eligibility for benefits, since at that time it was not the primary basis for the Board's 

decision. Moore, slip op. at 9 n.1.
5

A-4382-17T4

In September 2017, the Board remanded the matter to the Appeals Tribunal 

and a new hearing was held on October 20, 2017. During that hearing, Moore

testified further as to the time period her grandchildren's mother lived with her, as 

well as to her limited search for work, which included her temporary retirement 

beginning on February 7, 2016. The Tribunal mailed a decision disqualifying Moore

for benefits as of November 1, 2015, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), because she 

left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to work. Further, the Tribunal 

found Moore ineligible for benefits from November 1, 2015 to October 29, 2016,

pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-4(c)(1), because she was not available for work and was 

not actively seeking work. Moreover, the Tribunal found Moore did not qualify as 

a domestic violence victim under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(d) because the mother of her 

grandchildren was not a "household member."

Moore appealed to the Board, and in its decision the Board remanded the case 

to the Tribunal for an additional finding regarding whether or not the police report 

submitted by Moore was sufficient evidence to qualify her for benefits under 

N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(j)(2). Thereafter, a third hearing was conducted on February 21, 

2018. On the same day, the Tribunal held Moore ineligible for unemployment 

benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-4(c)(1) during the relevant time period because she 

was unavailable for work and had not actively sought work. The tribunal determined 
6

A-4382-17T4

that even if Moore qualified as a victim of domestic violence, the work search and 

availability requirements were not waived, and Moore did not meet either the 

requirements of an active work search or sufficient availability for work in order to 

maintain her eligibility for benefits. Moore appealed to the Board, and on April 17, 

2018 the Board rejected the findings of the Tribunal as to Moore's status as a victim 

of domestic violence, but adopted the conclusion of the Tribunal that Moore did not 

otherwise meet the eligibility requirements under N.J.S.A. 43:21-4(c)(1). This 

appeal followed.

 On appeal, Moore argues it was difficult to look for work under the 

circumstances of her age, health, lack of a driver's license, and her relocation to an 

unfamiliar state. She also asserts that she left her home under frightening 

circumstances and did not imagine she would lose her benefits. 

As in any review of a final decision of an administrative agency, we will 

sustain the administrative rulings if the findings could reasonably have been reached 

on substantial credible evidence in the record, considering the proofs as a whole. 

Ford v. Bd. of Review, 287 N.J. Super. 281, 283 (App. Div. 1996). We give due

regard to the ability of the administrative agency to judge credibility, as well as to 

the expertise of the agency. We will "reverse the decision of the administrative 

agency only if it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or it is not supported by 
7

A-4382-17T4

substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State 

Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980).

Although we are sympathetic to Moore's plight, we discern no error requiring 

us to reverse the Board's decision. We therefore affirm the Board's determination. 

The Board's alternate basis for denying appellant's unemployment benefits was her

failure to actively seek work pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-4(c)(1). This statute 

provides that an individual is not eligible for unemployment compensation unless 

the individual "is able to work, and is available for work, and has demonstrated to 

be actively seeking work." Ford, 287 N.J. Super. at 284 (quoting N.J.S.A. 43:21-

4(c)(1)). As for what constitutes actively seeking work, "reading want ads and 

telephoning a few places" is not enough. Guidice v. Bd. of Review, 14 N.J. Super. 

335, 338 (App. Div. 1951) (citations omitted).

 Here, Moore's testimony in her three administrative hearings demonstrated

she was not available for work, nor was she actively seeking work, from November 

1, 2015, through February 6, 2016, other than filling out a total of four online 

applications. It was not until January 2016, two months after she applied for 

unemployment benefits, that Moore began to look for work by calling employment 

agencies in addition to searching online. She testified she was sixty-eight years old, 

did not drive, was still afraid to go out and look for work because of the prior threats,
8

A-4382-17T4

and had even decided to retire temporarily on February 7, 2016. During the October 

20, 2017 hearing, Moore confirmed to the hearing examiner she had retired as of 

February 7, 2016, but that after discovering the man who threatened her was now 

imprisoned for life without parole, felt safer and began sending out resumes again.

As a result of her diligent efforts, Moore had the good fortune of securing new 

employment. 

Based on the substantial credible evidence in the record that appellant was not 

seeking work pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-4(c)(1) during the relevant time period, and 

that such a determination was not arbitrary, capricious, nor an abuse of discretion, 

we affirm the decision Moore was ineligible for benefits from November 1, 2015 

through February 6, 2016.

Affirmed.