SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3578-16T1

ERIC LACKLAND,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR and ADVOSERV OF 

NEW JERSEY, INC.,

Respondents.

_________________________________

Argued August 14, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Sumners and Gilson.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department 

of Labor, Docket No. 093,683.

Eric Lackland, appellant, argued the cause pro 

se.

Emily M. Bisnauth, Deputy Attorney General, 

argued the cause for respondent Board of 

Review (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, 

attorney; Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant 

Attorney General, of counsel; Emily M. 

Bisnauth, on the brief).

Respondent AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc. has 

not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

September 4, 2018
2 A-3578-16T1

Appellant Eric Lackland failed to telephonically appear for 

his hearing before the Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal), which resulted 

in a decision disqualifying him from receiving unemployment 

benefits because he was discharged for severe misconduct. Lackland 

appealed to the Board of Review (Board), which issued a final 

agency decision that he failed to demonstrate good cause for not 

appearing at the Tribunal's hearing or requesting an adjournment. 

We affirm. 

In October 2009, AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., which provides 

residential care for developmentally disabled persons and sex 

offenders, hired Lackland as a full-time community living 

specialist. In May 2016, Lackland was terminated for taking a 

resident out of the facility without permission and for repeatedly 

failing to follow instructions. He subsequently filed for 

unemployment benefits. The Deputy Director determined at a factfinding interview – in which AdvoServ did not appear – that 

Lackland was eligible for benefits. AdvoServ appealed to the 

Tribunal contending that it was not notified of the fact-finding 

interview and that Lackland was terminated for severe misconduct 

connected with the work.

A Notice of Telephone Hearing for AdvoServ's appeal was mailed 

to the parties. At the hearing, AdvoServ's representative 
3 A-3578-16T1

testified that appellant refused to follow instructions by taking 

a resident out into the community against orders, was disrespectful 

towards his supervisors, and had been written-up in the past for 

similar problems. Lackland, however, failed to call-in for the 

hearing or request a postponement. The Tribunal subsequently 

reversed the Deputy's decision, determining that Lackland was 

discharged for severe misconduct connected with the work as defined 

by N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(b). The Tribunal found that Lackland 

repeatedly failed to comply with his supervisor's directions, 

caused a commotion, and had been issued a prior warning for similar 

conduct in the past.

Lackland appealed to the Board, claiming that he did "not 

agree with the [Tribunal's] determination." The Board denied the 

appeal, determining:

Since [Lackland] 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 valid ground for a further hearing.

On the basis of the record below, we agree 

with [the] decision reached.

Before us, Lackland admits he received notice of the hearing, 

but claims he misunderstood the directions by believing that the 

Tribunal hearing examiner would call him. He also contends his 
4 A-3578-16T1

employer falsely claimed that he took residents out of the facility 

without permission, and that his employer falsified paperwork.

The scope of our review of an administrative agency's final 

determination is strictly limited. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 

N.J. 197, 210 (1997). The agency's decision may not be disturbed 

unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Ibid.

Therefore, "[i]f the Board's factual findings are supported 'by 

sufficient credible evidence, courts are obliged to accept them.'" 

Ibid. (quoting Self v. Bd. of Review, 91 N.J. 453, 459 (1982)).

N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(b) provides that a person is disqualified 

for benefits if he or she is discharged for misconduct connected 

with the work. Misconduct is defined as "a deliberate violation 

of the employer's rules or a disregard of the standards of behavior 

which the employer has a right to expect." Silver v. Bd. of 

Review, 430 N.J. Super. 44, 53 (App. Div. 2013) (citing Beaunit 

Mills, Inc. v. Bd. of Review, 43 N.J. Super. 172, 183 (App. Div. 

1956)). Such conduct must be "improper, intentional, connected 

with the work, malicious, and within the employee's control." 

Ibid. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(b) provides an enhanced penalty for 

individuals discharged for "severe misconduct." Examples of such 

misconduct include "repeated violations of an employer's rule or 

policy." Silver, 430 N.J. Super. at 54.
5 A-3578-16T1

We conclude the record supports the Board's finding that 

Lackland did not have good cause for not appearing at the

Tribunal's telephonic hearing and that he committed severe 

misconduct by continued violation of his employer's rules by 

failing to follow his supervisor's directions despite a prior 

warning. Hence, he has not shown that the Board violated express 

or implied legislative policies, or acted arbitrarily, 

capriciously, or unreasonably, in finding that appellant was 

disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.

Affirmed.