SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-3121-21 

ZOE HARRIS-HOHNE,

 Appellant, 

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

AND WORKFORCE 

DEVELOPMENT, and 

INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, 

 Respondents. 

_________________________

Submitted September 28, 2023 – Decided January 23, 2024 

Before Judges Vernoia and Gummer. 

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of 

Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No. 

253317.

Zoe Harris-Hohne, appellant pro se. 

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Board of Review (Donna Sue Arons, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Gina Marie 

Labrecque, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-3121-21

PER CURIAM 

Petitioner Zoe Harris-Hohne appeals from a May 5, 2022 final decision of 

the Board of Review. In that decision, the Board affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's

dismissal of petitioner's appeal from a determination that she was not eligible 

for unemployment benefits and a request that she refund benefits already paid 

to her. The Appeal Tribunal dismissed her appeal, finding petitioner had not 

timely filed it pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(b)(1) and had not established good 

cause for its untimeliness pursuant to N.J.A.C. 12:20-3.1(i). Having considered 

the evidence in the record, the parties' arguments, and the applicable legal 

principles, we affirm in part and remand in part for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision. 

I.

 Petitioner was employed as a recruiter with Insight Global, LLC from July 

13, 2019, through February 14, 2020. According to petitioner, she terminated 

her employment with Insight Global due to "[t]he pressure and stress of being 

pushed to get [her] promoted to a position that [she] was not prepared for . . . 

for the sole purpose of [her] management team being awarded additional 

compensation for [her] promotion." On April 5, 2020, petitioner submitted a 

claim for unemployment benefits, with a weekly benefit rate of $521. She 
3 A-3121-21

received a total of $9,899 in unemployment benefits for the weeks ending April 

11, 2020, through August 15, 2020. 

In a notice mailed on December 23, 2020, a deputy of the Director of the 

New Jersey Division of Unemployment Insurance advised petitioner she was not 

eligible for unemployment benefits as of February 16, 2020, because she had 

"left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to [that] work." In a 

separate notice also mailed on December 23, 2020, the Director of 

Unemployment Insurance requested petitioner return the $9,899 in benefits she 

had received. The Director advised petitioner she was not eligible for those 

funds because she had "quit [her] job without good cause" and that "[a]ny money 

collected improperly must be returned regardless of the reason for the 

overpayment in accordance with N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(d)." The Director informed 

petitioner that if she disagreed with the determination she had an obligation to 

refund and repay those benefits, she had to file a written appeal within seven 

calendar days after delivery of the notice or ten calendar days after the mailing 

of the notice. The Director also informed petitioner about her right pursuant to 

N.J.A.C. 12:17-14.2 to request a waiver of her obligation to repay the benefits. 

Petitioner received both notices on December 26, 2020. 
4 A-3121-21

According to petitioner, she mailed an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal on 

January 14, 2021. That appeal subsequently could not be located. In April of 

2021, petitioner spoke with a Department representative who recommended she 

file an appeal by mail and on the appropriate website. On May 11, 2021, 

petitioner filed a second appeal online and by mail. In that appeal, petitioner 

disputed the finding she had quit her job without good cause, contending she 

had "resigned from that job because of specific reasons, all of which created an 

untenable environment." Petitioner also requested the Appeal Tribunal "kindly 

waive the requirement for [her] to reimburse benefits paid." 

 An Appeal Tribunal appeals examiner conducted a telephonic hearing on 

December 8, 2021, during which petitioner and her father testified. At the 

beginning of the hearing, the appeal examiner stated: "The issues involved in 

this case [are] timeliness of filing the appeal, . . . voluntarily leaving, Pandemic 

Unemployment Assistance, and non-fraud refund." Petitioner answered, "Yes," 

when the examiner asked her if she "underst[oo]d the issues that [would] be 

discussed." When asked why she had not filed the appeal timely, petitioner 

responded: 

Given the period . . . it was the holiday season we were 

with family. I then mailed my first appeal on January 

14 which [was] just a couple of weeks later after 

receiving [the notice]. So, we did do it really as soon 
5 A-3121-21

as possible. It was extremely important specifically. 

So for me during the holiday time and . . . all the

craziness going [on] that was as soon as I was able to 

. . . draft the appeal and get it sent . . . . 

 

Petitioner's father testified that from their perspective they had done 

"everything [they] could to be timely and to continue following [up] with the 

State for a response to [the] appeal." Petitioner's father gave no specific reason 

for the untimeliness of the appeal. At the end of the hearing, the appeals 

examiner asked petitioner if she would "like to give a closing remark before 

[she] close[d] out the hearing." Petitioner responded that she had nothing else 

to say and that everything she had wanted to cover during the hearing had been 

covered. 

 In its December 8, 2021 decision, the Appeal Tribunal accepted 

petitioner's representations that she had received the notices on December 26, 

2020, and had filed an appeal on January 14, 2021, but found that appeal was 

not timely under N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(b)(1). It also found petitioner had not 

demonstrated good cause for the untimeliness of the appeal because the delay 

"was not for a circumstance beyond the control of [petitioner], nor for a 

circumstance which could [not] have been reasonably foreseen or prevented," 

citing N.J.A.C. 12:20-3.1(i). Concluding it had no jurisdiction to rule on the 
6 A-3121-21

merits of the appeal given its untimeliness, the Appeal Tribunal dismissed the 

appeal. 

 On December 15, 2021, petitioner appealed from the decision of the 

Appeal Tribunal. In that appeal, she asserted for the first time that her father 

had been "in a severe car accident on December 19, 2020 . . . . and he [had been] 

badly injured." According to petitioner, she "began staying near [her] father and 

taking care of him" after the accident and when he collapsed on December 23, 

2020, she brought him to a hospital "where he underwent several medical tests 

and procedures." Petitioner submitted with her appeal medical records that 

reflect petitioner's father received treatment in the hospital emergency room on 

December 23, 2020, but do not reflect treatments on any other day. Petitioner 

represented that from December 19, 2020, and "through most of the month of 

January, 2021, [her] focus was on taking care of [her] father and supporting his 

recovery." Petitioner contended that based on those circumstances, she had 

demonstrated good cause for the delay in the filing of her appeal. 

Petitioner claimed she had not "anticipate[d] the Appeal Tribunal would 

evaluate [her] appeal based on 'timeliness of appeal filing'" but "anticipated 

rather that the Appeal Tribunal would evaluate [her] appeal based on the more 

substantive fact of, 'I did not voluntarily leave my previous employment.'" 
7 A-3121-21

Consequently, she "did not feel that, during the telephone hearing, there was any 

need for [her] to go deeper into [her] explanation as to why [her] appeal was not 

filed in a timely manner." 

 On May 5, 2022, the Board affirmed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal 

dismissing petitioner's appeal. The Board found petitioner had not established 

good cause under N.J.A.C. 12:20-3.1(i) for her delay in filing the appeal because 

"the delay was caused by the holiday season according to [her] testimony taken 

under oath." The Board held that because petitioner had not established good 

cause for the delay in filing her appeal, the Appeal Tribunal "properly 

dismissed" her appeal as untimely pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(b)(1). 

Petitioner appeals from the Board's decision, arguing it erred in finding 

she had not provided good cause for the late filing of her initial appeal and in 

not considering the substantive merits of that appeal. 

II. 

"We review a decision made by an administrative agency entrusted to 

apply and enforce a statutory scheme under an enhanced deferential standard." 

E. Bay Drywall, LLC v. Dep't of Lab. & Workforce Dev., 251 N.J. 477, 493 

(2022). Accordingly, "we will disturb an agency's adjudicatory decision only 

upon a finding that the decision is 'arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable,' or is 
8 A-3121-21

unsupported 'by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.'" 

Sullivan v. Bd. of Rev., Dep't of Lab., 471 N.J. Super. 147, 155-56 (App. Div. 

2022) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)). In 

making that determination, we "must examine: '(1) whether the agency's 

decision conforms with relevant law; (2) whether the decision is supported by 

substantial credible evidence in the record; and (3) whether, in applying the law 

to the facts, the administrative agency clearly erred in reaching its conclusion.'" 

In re Y.L., 437 N.J. Super 409, 412 (App. Div. 2014) (quoting Twp. Pharmacy 

v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 432 N.J. Super. 273, 283-84 (App. 

Div. 2013)). "The burden of proving that an agency action is arbitrary, 

capricious, or unreasonable is on the challenger." Parsells v. Bd. of Educ., 472 

N.J. Super. 369, 376 (App. Div. 2022). Petitioner has not met that burden. 

The Board did not err in finding untimely petitioner's initial appeal. The 

version of N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(b)(1) in effect when petitioner submitted her appeal 

provided that a decision "shall be final" unless the claimant files an appeal 

"within seven calendar days after delivery of notification of an initial 

determination or within [ten] calendar days after such notification was mailed." 
9 A-3121-21

See N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(b)(1) (2017) (amended July 2023).1 The notices were 

mailed on December 23, 2020, and petitioner admittedly received them on 

December 26, 2020. The Appeals Tribunal and the Board accepted petitioner's 

representation that she had filed an appeal on January 14, 2021. But that 

purported submission was more than seven days after petitioner had received 

the notices and more than ten days after they were mailed. Thus, petitioner's 

appeal was untimely. 

Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 12:20-3.1(i), a late appeal may be considered on its 

merits if "the appeal was delayed for good cause," with good cause existing 

when "[t]he delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond the 

control of the appellant" or "[t]he appellant delayed filing the appeal for 

circumstances which could not have been reasonably foreseen or prevented." 

1

 N.J.S.A. 43:21-6 and -16 were amended after the Board issued its decision. 

See L. 2022, c. 120. Among other things, N.J.S.A. 43:21-6 was amended to 

increase the time for filing an appeal. However, nothing in the amendment 

indicates the Legislature intended retroactive application of the amendment. See 

In re J.D-F., 248 N.J. 11, 22 (2021) ("[C]ourts generally will enforce newly 

enacted substantive statutes prospectively, unless [the Legislature] clearly 

expresses a contrary intent." (quoting Maeker v. Ross, 219 N.J. 565, 578 

(2014))). In fact, the Legislature expressly provided the act amending the statute 

would "take effect on the 270th day following enactment, . . . [,]" which was 

July 31, 2023. See State v. Lane, 251 N.J. 84, 96 (2022) (recognizing the Court 

has "repeatedly construed language stating that a provision is to be effective 

immediately, or effective immediately on a given date, to signal prospective 

application"). 
10 A-3121-21

We agree with the Appeal Tribunal and the Board that petitioner's testimony that 

the appeal was delayed because "it was the holiday season" does not demonstrate 

good cause under N.J.A.C. 12:20-3.1(i). 

In relying on petitioner's sworn testimony to determine the cause of the 

delay and not her belated, unsworn submissions attributing the delay to her 

father's accident, the Board did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably. 

The Board's finding that the delay was caused by "the holiday season" was 

supported by evidence in the record, specifically petitioner's testimony. 

Petitioner's subsequent assertion that her failure to file the appeal timely was 

caused by her father's accident was not supported by any affidavit or 

certification. Her contention that she believed she did not need to testify about 

her father's accident during the telephonic hearing because she did not know the 

Appeal Tribunal would evaluate her appeal based on its timeliness is belied by 

the record. At the beginning of the hearing, the appeal examiner expressly stated 

the "issues involved in this case," including the "timeliness of filing the appeal." 

When asked if she understood the issues that would be discussed, petitioner 

answered, "Yes." When the examiner asked petitioner directly why she had not 

filed the appeal timely, petitioner testified about only the holiday period; she 

said nothing about her father's accident. When her father testified, he asserted 
11 A-3121-21

they had done "everything" they could to be timely; he said nothing about his 

accident. 

Because the Appellate Tribunal and the Board correctly applied the law 

in place when they rendered their decisions and because substantial credible 

evidence in the record supports their conclusion that petitioner did not file the 

appeal timely and did not establish good cause for the delay in filing her appeal, 

we see no basis to disturb the Board's decision and, accordingly, affirm it. 

The Board in its decision, however, did not address petitioner's request for 

a waiver pursuant to N.J.A.C. 12:17-14.2 of the obligation to repay the 

unemployment benefits she had received. Petitioner made the request for a 

waiver in her May 11, 2021 letter to the Appeal Tribunal. Neither the Appeal 

Tribunal nor the Board addressed that request in their decisions. The question 

of a refund waiver "should be decided in the first instance, by the Division, 

applying its expertise." Mullarney v. Bd. of Rev., 343 N.J. Super. 401, 410 

(App. Div. 2001). We, therefore, remand this matter to the Director of the 

Division for consideration of petitioner's waiver request, with an enhanced 

record, if necessary. 
12 A-3121-21

Affirmed in part and remanded in part to the Division for consideration of 

petitioner's request that the demand for reimbursement of benefits be waived. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.