SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3540-19

J.S.,

1

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,

and BENIHANA NATIONAL

CORP.,

Respondents.

___________________________

Submitted June 3, 2021 – Decided June 24, 2021

Before Judges Alvarez and Mitterhoff.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of 

Labor, Docket No. 201,135.

J.S., appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Board of Review (Donna Arons, Assistant 

Attorney General, of counsel; Kendall J. Collins, 

Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

1

 We use initials to protect appellant's privacy.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3540-19

PER CURIAM

J.S. appeals from a Board of Review (Board) February 20, 2020 final 

agency decision, adopting an Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) determination that she 

is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits because she 

left her job without good cause attributable to the work. See N.J.S.A. 43:21-

5(a). We affirm.

J.S. began working for respondent Benihana National Corp. as a hostess 

in September 2018. On August 23, 2019, she sought treatment from her mental 

healthcare provider for what she described as a mental breakdown. At that time, 

J.S. reported that her psychological issues were interfering with her ability to 

perform tasks at work. 

On September 27, 2019, J.S. did not go to work due to her mental 

breakdown. She went to a hospital, where she was advised to consult with her 

psychiatrist in order to adjust her medication regime. J.S. did not request or 

obtain approval from her employer to miss the shift or any shift thereafter, or to 

take medical leave. 

On October 3, 2019, J.S. returned to her mental health provider for 

treatment related to her breakdown. By October 16, 2019, she was ready to 

return to work, so she obtained a letter from her clinician requesting that her 
3

A-3540-19

employer excuse the time she was away. The same day, J.S. contacted her 

supervisor, who told her to return on October 21, 2019, to discuss her 

employment. At the meeting, J.S. presented the letter she obtained from her 

clinician and requested to return to work. Her supervisor advised her that she 

had been terminated for abandoning her position but invited her to re-apply 

through respondent's online application portal. She was not re-hired.2 

J.S. applied for unemployment benefits on October 20, 2019 but was 

denied. She appealed to the Tribunal and appeared for a telephonic hearing on 

January 16, 2020. In support of her appeal, J.S. produced the letter she obtained 

from her clinician. After explaining the events that led to her termination, the 

appeals examiner asked if J.S. had any family members or friends that could 

have advised her employer of the situation. J.S. testified that she did but did not 

have anyone call because she "wasn't mentally thinking right." 

The Tribunal found J.S. had "left work voluntarily without good cause 

attributable to the work and [was therefore] disqualified for benefits as of 

[September 22, 2019], in accordance with N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a)." She appealed 

2

 J.S. testified that she was rehired during the October 21, 2019 meeting, but 

her supervisor decided not to bring her back later that week. Whether or not she 

was actually rehired, J.S. would not have become eligible for benefits until she 

completed eight weeks of work after becoming reemployed. See N.J.S.A. 43:21-

5(a). 
4

A-3540-19

her disqualification to the Board, which affirmed the Tribunal's decision. This 

appeal ensued.

In her pro se brief, J.S. raises the following argument for our 

consideration:

POINT I

THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL AND BOARD OF 

REVIEW DENIED MY CLAIM FOR 

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TWICE. THEY DID 

NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT I WAS IN 

NEED OF MEDICAL ATTENTION. THE 

CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE WAY 

[MY EMPLOYER] AND I PARTED WAS DUE TO A 

MEDICAL EMERGENCY, A MENTAL 

BREAKDOWN. I HAVE DOCUMENTED PROOF 

THAT THE DEPARTURE WAS NOT VOLUNTARY, 

BUT NECESSARY.

Our review of decisions by administrative agencies is limited. In re 

Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011). The "final determination of an 

administrative agency . . . is entitled to substantial deference." In re Eastwick 

Coll. LPN-to-RN Bridge Program, 225 N.J. 533, 541 (2016). We reverse only

if "the decision is 'arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable,' the determination 

'violate[s] express or implied legislative policies,' the agency's action offends 

the United States Constitution or the State Constitution, or 'the findings on 

which [the decision] was based were not supported by substantial, credible 
5

A-3540-19

evidence in the record.'" Ibid. (alterations in original) (quoting Univ. Cottage 

Club of Princeton N.J. Corp. v. N.J. Dep't of Env't Prot., 191 N.J. 38, 48 (2007)). 

"The burden of demonstrating that the agency's action was arbitrary, 

capricious[,] or unreasonable rests upon the person challenging the 

administrative action." In re Arenas, 385 N.J. Super. 440, 443-44 (App. Div. 

2006).

Under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), a person is ineligible for unemployment 

benefits if he or she leaves work voluntarily without good cause attributable to 

such work. N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(b) defines "good cause attributable to such 

work" as "a reason related directly to the individual's employment, which was 

so compelling as to give the individual no choice but to leave the employment." 

Individuals who leave work for a legitimate, but personal reason, however, do 

not qualify for unemployment compensation under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). See

Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 213 (1997) (stating N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) 

was amended "in 1961 to disqualify claimants who left work for purely personal 

reasons"). Such reasons include voluntarily terminating one's employment 

because the requirements of the work are harmful to a pre-existing condition 

which does not have a work-related origin. Stauhs v. Bd. of Review, 93 N.J. 

Super. 451, 457-58 (App. Div. 1967). 
6

A-3540-19

"When a non-work connected physical and/or mental condition makes it 

necessary for an individual to leave work due to an inability to perform the job, 

the individual shall be disqualified for benefits for voluntarily leaving work." 

N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.3(b). However, "an individual who has been absent because 

of a . . . [pre-existing] mental condition shall not be subject to disqualification 

for voluntarily leaving work if the individual has made a reasonable effort to 

preserve his or her employment, but has still been terminated by the employer." 

N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.3(c). An employee's "reasonable effort is evidenced by the 

employee's notification to the employer, requesting a leave of absence[,] or 

having taken other steps to protect his or her employment." Ibid.

We discern no basis to reverse the Board's determination that J.S. failed 

to sustain her burden of establishing she left work voluntarily for good cause 

attributable to the work. She did not present any evidence demonstrating her 

condition was caused, N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(b), or aggravated, N.J.A.C. 12:17-

9.3(b), by her employment. J.S. also failed to establish that she made any effort

to preserve her employment prior to or after her voluntary departure. She 

initially sought treatment on August 23, 2019, at which time she reported her 

breakdown was interfering with her ability to perform tasks at work. Her first 

absence was on September 27, 2019. During the thirty-five days that elapsed, 
7

A-3540-19

J.S. did not take any steps to preserve her employment. Nor did she have anyone 

contact her employer after she stopped showing up to work, despite having 

friends and family members that could have. Although we are sympathetic to 

the challenges posed by fulfilling one's employment obligations while dealing 

with mental health issues, unemployment benefits are not available to "claimants 

who [leave] work for purely personal reasons." Brady, 152 N.J. at 213.

Affirmed.