SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3603-18T2

RUTH M. BONETA,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

and NJDAM INC.,

Respondents.

__________________________

Submitted February 26, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Enright. 

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of 

Labor, Docket No. 172,783.

Ruth M. Boneta, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Board of Review (Donna Arons, Assistant 

Attorney General, of counsel; Rimma Razhba, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

March 17, 2020
2

A-3603-18T2

Schiller Pittenger & Galvin, PC, attorneys for 

respondent NJDAM, Inc. (Jay Bently Bohn, on the 

brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Ruth Boneta appeals from a final decision of the Board of 

Review (Board), finding her ineligible for unemployment benefits because she 

left her job without good cause attributable to the work. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). 

We affirm.

Appellant was employed by respondent NJDAM, Inc. (NJDAM) as an 

office manager from December 22, 2004 through December 18, 2018. In 2015, 

NJDAM's owner hired a relative who worked with appellant for approximately 

three years. Appellant had a difficult working relationship with this coworker 

and complained to the owner that the coworker refused to accept responsibility 

for his actions and used vulgar language in the workplace. The owner told 

appellant the coworker was a valuable member of the team. 

Appellant reported that the "spats in the office" and the problems she had 

with her coworker affected her health, so she sought medical treatment for workrelated stress and "flare ups" in her fibromyalgia symptoms. However, she did 

not provide any medical documentation to her employer to confirm her job was 
3

A-3603-18T2

adversely affecting her health. Further, she did not request a leave of absence 

or a medical accommodation. 

On November 1, 2018, appellant asked her coworker to address certain 

issues with the launch of a new credit card system. Reportedly, the coworker 

again became argumentative and used vulgar language. That same day, 

appellant submitted a resignation letter to NJDAM's owner, advising December 

22, 2018 would be her last day of work. Prior to her anticipated termination 

date, appellant worked from home and reported to work on certain Fridays to 

train staff in her duties. Her hours were irregular and "because of some 

miscommunication, [her] actual last date" on the job was December 7, 2018. 

However, she claimed she performed work for NJDAM up until December 18, 

2018.

Appellant filed for benefits in December 2018. In January 2019, a deputy 

from the New Jersey Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment

(Division) determined appellant was ineligible for benefits beginning December 

2, 2018. Appellant appealed the determination to the Appeal Tribunal and in 

February 2019, the Tribunal affirmed the Division's determination, but modified 

the Division's decision as to the date of disqualification. The Tribunal 

specifically found appellant was disqualified for benefits as of December 16, 
4

A-3603-18T2

2018 because she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to work. 

N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). The Board affirmed this decision on March 21, 2019. 

Appellant argues the Board erred when it disqualified her for benefits

because it failed to appreciate the "hostile work environment" created by her 

coworker which "constructively prevented" her from continuing her 

employment, and she did not understand she could pursue a leave of absence or 

workplace accommodation. Appellant also contends she should qualify for 

unemployment benefits because her fibromyalgia symptoms were aggravated by 

workplace stress. 

We exercise limited review of administrative agency decisions and must 

accept the Board's findings if they are supported by sufficient credible evidence. 

Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). We simply determine 

whether the administrative decision is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). "As a general rule, 

the reviewing court should give 'due regard to the opportunity of the one who 

heard the witnesses to judge of their credibility . . . and . . . [give] due regard 

also to the agency's expertise where such expertise is a pertinent factor.'" 

Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 587 (1988) (alterations in original) 

(quoting Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965)).
5

A-3603-18T2

Applying these principles, we find no error in the Board's decision to deny 

benefits. In order to avoid disqualification, claimant had the burden of 

establishing that she left work for "good cause attributable to work." Brady 152 

N.J. at 218. "Good cause attributable to such work" is defined by N.J.A.C. 

12:17-9.1(b) 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." When an applicant for benefits demonstrates "through 

uncontroverted medical evidence[] that her disease has been and will be 

aggravated by the [work] environment[,] . . . [t]his constitutes 'good cause.'" 

Israel v. Bally's Park Place, Inc., 283 N.J. Super. 1, 5 (App. Div. 1995) (citation 

omitted). But an applicant must demonstrate "the environment at her job 

aggravated her illness." Ibid. "Mere dissatisfaction with working conditions 

which are not shown to be abnormal or do not affect health, does not constitute 

good cause for leaving work voluntarily." Domenico v. Bd. of Review, 192 N.J. 

Super. 284, 288 (App. Div. 1983) (quoting Medwick v. Bd. of Review, 69 N.J. 

Super. 338, 345 (App. Div. 1961)). 

The Appeal Tribunal resolved the factual dispute over whether appellant 

left NJDAM for good cause adversely to appellant. The Tribunal's 

determination, adopted by the Board, that appellant left work voluntarily, 
6

A-3603-18T2

without good cause attributable to the work, is supported by substantial credible 

evidence in the record as a whole, and is not arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable. Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the Board's finding.

Affirmed.