The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0956-23
MAGDOULEN A. SAWIRES,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AND ELIZABETH BOARD
OF EDUCATION,
Respondents.
_________________________
Submitted December 9, 2024 – Decided March 14, 2025
Before Judges Gummer and Jacobs.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of
Labor, Docket No. 326131.
Magdoulen A. Sawires, appellant pro se.
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Board of Review (Janet Greenberg Cohen,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Kathryn B.
Moynihan, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
La Corte, Bundy, Varady & Kinsella, attorneys for
respondent Elizabeth Board of Education (Brian J.
Kane, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Magdoulen A. Sawires ("claimant") appeals from a final agency
decision of the Board of Review deeming her ineligible for one week of
unemployment benefits. Sawires was terminated from a non-tenured teaching
position with the Elizabeth Board of Education ("EBE"). For reasons that
follow, we affirm the Board's decision.
I.
In January 2022, claimant became an eighth-grade science teacher in the
Elizabeth school system, employed by the EBE. In May of that year, the EBE
issued two letters to claimant informing her that her contract would not be
renewed for the 2022-2023 school year for "performance[-]related" reasons and
that her last day of work would be June 30, 2022. In Sawires v. Elizabeth Board
of Education, No. A-0071-23 (App. Div. June 3, 2024), we affirmed the Law
Division's dismissal without prejudice of appellant's appeal of EBE's non-
renewal decision.
Following her termination, which was effective June 30, 2022, claimant
filed for and received unemployment benefits from July 31, 2022 through
A-0956-23
2
November 5, 2022. On November 22, 2022, a deputy of the Division of
Unemployment and Disability Insurance of the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development ("Department") determined claimant was ineligible for
benefits from October 23 to 29, 2022, as she had canceled a job interview due
to illness that week. Claimant administratively appealed that decision. During
a May 6, 2023 hearing before the Appeal Tribunal, claimant testified that during
the week of October 23 to 29, 2022, she had asked to reschedule an interview
with a potential employer because she was ill. Claimant asserted that although
she had been "very sick" for "one to three days" during that time period, she was
nonetheless actively seeking work.
On May 8, 2023, the Tribunal issued a decision finding plaintiff
"ineligible for benefits from 10/23/2022 through 10/29/2022, as the claimant
was not able to work, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 43:21-4(c)(1)." The pertinent
portion of N.J.S.A. 43:21-4, as cited in the Tribunal's decision, reads:
Benefit eligibility conditions. An unemployed
individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with
respect to any week eligible only if:
(c) (1) The individual is able to work, and is available
for work, and has demonstrated to be actively seeking
work . . . .
A-0956-23
3
Claimant appealed the Tribunal's decision to the Board, appending
documents to substantiate that she had applied for several positions between
October 23, 2022 and October 29, 2022. In a decision mailed on November 1,
2023, the Board dismissed plaintiff's appeal, concluding that there was no
justiciable issue because plaintiff had "exhausted all benefits to which [she] was
entitled on the claim dated July 31, 2022." This appeal followed.
In response, the Board reiterates that petitioner's appeal is moot because
she received all of the benefits to which she was entitled; namely, thirteen weeks
of benefits at the rate of $804 per week, for a total of $10,452. Appending proof
in the form of payment summary and individual pay records captioned "NJDOL-
LOOPS," counsel for the Board observes, "[t]hough Sawires did not receive any
unemployment benefits for the week of October 23, 2022, to October 29, 2022
because of the Board's determination that she was unavailable for work, she then
received benefits the following week of November 5, 2022, to November 12,
2022." In reply, plaintiff does not challenge the accuracy of these proofs.
Instead, she repeats her assertion she was "availab[le] to work during the denied
week" and presses arguments associated with her concomitant appeal that was
the focus of our June 2024 decision.
A-0956-23
4
II.
We employ a highly deferential standard of review of an administrative
decision. Overall, on judicial review "[o]ur function is to determine whether the
administrative action was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable." Burris v.
Police Dep't, 338 N.J. Super. 493, 496 (App. Div. 2001) (citing Henry v.
Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 580 (1980)); see also Aqua Beach Condo.
Ass'n v. Dep't of Cmty. Affs., 186 N.J. 5, 15-16 (2006) (citation omitted). The
agency decision must be supported by substantial credible evidence in the record
as a whole. Circus Liquors, Inc. v. Middletown Twp., 199 N.J. 1, 10 (2009)
(quoting Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995)). It must not offend either
the state or federal constitution and must be in accord with the agency's
legislative mandate. Ibid. "The burden of demonstrating that the agency's
action was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable rests upon the [party]
challenging the administrative action." In re Arenas, 385 N.J. Super. 440, 443-
44 (App. Div. 2006) (citations omitted).
Our jurisprudence provides that
[m]ootness is a threshold justiciability determination
rooted in the notion that judicial power is to be
exercised only when a party is immediately threatened
with harm. "A case is technically moot when the
original issue presented has been resolved, at least
concerning the parties who initiated the litigation." To
A-0956-23
5
restate, "'an issue is "moot" when the decision sought
in a matter, when rendered, can have no practical effect
on the existing controversy.'"
Courts normally will not decide issues when a
controversy no longer exists, and the disputed issues
have become moot.
[Betancourt v. Trinitas Hosp., 415 N.J. Super. 301, 311
(App. Div. 2010) (citations omitted).]
Having reviewed the entire record, we are satisfied claimant has not met
her burden of proving that the agency's decision was arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable, or that it was not supported by substantial credible evidence in
the record as a whole. Burris, 338 N.J. Super. at 496. Beyond this, the record
reflects without meaningful contestation that claimant received the full amount
of unemployment benefits she seeks and exhausted all benefits to which she was
entitled, rendering her underlying claim moot. We therefore see no error in the
Appeal Tribunal's decision of May 8, 2023, disallowing payment for the week
in question. Likewise, we discern nothing arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable
in the Board of Review's final agency decision to dismiss claimant's contention
as moot.
To the extent we have not addressed them, any other arguments on appeal
lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-0956-23
6