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 Valentin, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

February 15, 2019
2

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 December 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 about 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 second 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 about 
3

A-5129-16T3

working for the devil." Claimant said her employers were all "motherfuckers"

and repeated the statement after being told that cursing would be grounds for 

termination. Although claimant later sent a message by text apologizing for her 

comments, she did not remember 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 discretion, 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 reasonable 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 where 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 to 

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 have 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 reactions of a reasonable person."

The Board disagreed, determining that misconduct encompassed the use 

of profanity after 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 inappropriate and grounds for termination"

disqualified claimant from unemployment benefits. In the current environment 

where cursing is prevalent, we might make a different assessment, but we do not 

reverse. See In re N.J. Dept. of Envtl. Prot. Conditional Highlands Applicability 
5

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 must 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.