SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 5129

- 16T3
ANNE RAYMOND,
Appellant,

v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and UROLOGY GROUP OF PRINCETON, PA , Respondents.

_____________________________

Submitted January 30, 2019

– Decided
Before Judges Koblitz and Currier

. On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No. 107 , 106

.
James Vale n tin, attorney for appellant.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Melissa Dutton Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Daniel Pierre, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not " constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.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.

F ebruary 1 5 , 20192 A

- 5129

- 16T3 Respondent Urology Group of Princeton
, PA , has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM
Claimant Anne Raymond appeals from the March 30, 2017 decision of the
Board of Review (Board) finding her insubordination rose " to the level of simple

misconduct connected with the work
, " and rendered her disqualified for benefits

from November 6 through D ecember 31, 2016. See N.J.S.A. 43:21

- 5(b )

. We

affirm.

Claimant was disqualified due to misconduct connected to her work.
Raymond appealed and the Appeal Tribunal reversed, finding that she used
profanity toward her employer after receiving a warning abou t her conduct, but

that this was a " normal reaction " and did not go beyond the " ordinary reactions
of a reasonable person. " The employer, Urology Group of Princeton, PA,
appealed and the matter was remanded because no audible record was available.

A seco nd hearing took place before the Appeal Tribunal.
The facts as found by the Appeal Tribunal are not in serious dispute.
Claimant worked for Urology Group as a " desk receptionist " from October 2012

until her termination for insubordination in November 2016. That November
day, claimant ' s supervisor brought claimant into a room and gave her a written
warning for poor time management and " gossiping and making comments about3 A

- 5129

- 16T3

working f or the devil. " Claimant said her employers were all " mother fuck ers "
and repeated the statement after being told that cursing wo uld be grounds for

termination. Although claimant later sent a message by text apologizing for her
comments, she did not rememb er cursing when she testified before the Tribunal

.
She said she just remembered crying because she was upset.
Our review of administrative agency decisions is limited. We will not
disturb an agency ' s action unless it was clearly " arbitrary, capricious, or

unreasonable. " Brady v. Bd. of Review , 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997).

N.J.S.A. 43:21

- 5 disqualifies a claimant from unemployment benefits
(b) For the week in which the individual has been suspended or discharged for misconduct connected with the work, and for the five weeks which immediately follow that week, as determined in each

case.

" Misconduct " means conduct which is improper, intentional, connected with the individual ' s work, within the individual ' s control, not a good faith error of judgment or discret ion, and is either a deliberate refusal, without good cause, to comply with the employer ' s lawful and reasonable rules made known to the employee or a deliberate disregard of standards of behavior the employer has a reasonable right to expect, including re asonable safety standards and reasonable standards for a workplace free of drug and substance abuse.

The Administrative Code further defines insubordination:4 A

- 5129

- 16T3 a) An individual shall be considered to have been discharged for an act of simple misconduct whe re it is established that he or she has committed an act of

" simple misconduct " and met one of the following:
1. Refused without good cause to comply with instructions from the employer, which were lawful, reasonable, and did not require the individual t o perform services beyond the scope of his or her customary job duties;
2. Acted beyond the expressed or implied authority granted to the individual by the employer; or
3. Violated a reasonable rule of the employer which the individual knew or should h ave known was in effect.
[N.J.A.C. 12:17

- 10.5

. ]

The Tribunal stated: " This Tribunal does not believe that the use of
profanity is insubordination." The Tribunal found it did not "go beyond the
ordinary re actions of a reasonable person."

The Board disagreed, determining that misconduct encompassed the use
of profanity a fter being told to stop or risk termination. The Board found the

" use of profanity directed at the employer [that] continued after the employer
advised her that her language was inap propriate and grounds for termination "
disqualified claimant from unemployment benefits. In the current environment
where cursing is prevalent, w e might make a different assessment , but we do not

reverse

. See In re N.J. Dept. of Envt l

. Prot

. Conditional Highlands Applicability5 A

- 5129

- 16T3

Determination , 433 N.J. Super. 223 , 235 (App. Div. 2013) ( "If the Appellate

Division is satisfied after its review that the evidence and the inferences to be
drawn therefrom support the agency head's decision, then it m ust affirm even if

the court feels that it would have reached a different result itself." (quoting
Campbell v. N.J. Racing Comm'n , 169 N.J. 579, 587 (2001)) )

.
The Board ' s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

Affirmed.