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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1423-23
JASMIL RIVAS,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
and NN ACQUISITION, LLC,
Respondents.
__________________________
Submitted June 4, 2025 – Decided July 28, 2025
Before Judges Currier and Marczyk.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of
Labor and Workforce Development, Division of
Unemployment Insurance, Docket No. 251936.
Legal Services of New Jersey, attorneys for appellant
(Sarah Hymowitz, on the briefs).
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Board of Review (Janet Greenberg Cohen,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Gina
Labrecque, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from the Board of Review, Department of Labor's
(Board) November 29, 2023 decision: (1) disqualifying plaintiff for regular
unemployment benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), because she left work
voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work; and (2) finding plaintiff
ineligible for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) benefits under the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), 15 U.S.C.
§§ 9001-9141. We affirm.
I.
Plaintiff was employed in the admissions office of Lincoln Technical
Institute of New Jersey (Lincoln Tech).1 For several months at the beginning of
the COVID-19 pandemic, Lincoln Tech held classes remotely but resumed in-
person instruction in July 2020.
Plaintiff resigned from her position in November 2020, stating in her
resignation letter: "I have been part of the Lincoln Tech Team since October
4[], 2016. I've worked with amazing people throughout my time here. It is with
heavy heart that I decided to resign, but my mental health and sanity are being
1
The employer on the Board documents and case caption is NN Acquisition,
LLC. The record seems to indicate NN Acquisition, LLC owns Lincoln Tech.
A-1423-23
2
affected." Her last day of work was November 19, 2020. Plaintiff applied for
unemployment benefits on November 22.
In January 2021, the Deputy of the Division of Unemployment Insurance
determined that plaintiff was disqualified from receiving benefits because she
left work voluntarily as she felt the work was adversely affecting her health.
Plaintiff also did not meet any of the qualifying reasons for PUA benefits under
the CARES Act.
Plaintiff filed an appeal on March 19, 2021. The Appeal Tribunal
(Tribunal) dismissed plaintiff's appeal as untimely without good cause under
N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(b)(1) (appeal must be filed within ten days of the mailing of
the determination or within seven days of the receipt of the determination). The
Board affirmed and dismissed the appeal.
After plaintiff appealed to this court, the Board moved for a remand to
reconsider the timeliness of the appeal. We granted the motion. Thereafter, the
Board set aside its prior decision and remanded to the Tribunal for additional
testimony regarding the timeliness of plaintiff's appeal.
During the course of several telephonic hearings, plaintiff testified that
she was aware of the deadline to file an appeal. However, plaintiff stated her
delay in filing was because she was "going through [a] pregnancy miscarriage.
A-1423-23
3
So [she] . . . didn't tend to the letter in that specific moment . . . [but did] when
[she] was mentally . . . able to focus on the unemployment issue." Specifically,
plaintiff had two miscarriages, the first in mid-January 2021 and another in late
February 2021. She testified this rendered her unable "to take care of [her]
regular day to day functioning as [she] had [done] before."
Plaintiff further testified that although she previously stated she was able
to work during the time-period from when she filed her initial claim until she
filed her appeal, she actually was not able to work until "after the pregnancy
miscarriage[s]" when she became more "stable" around March of 2021.
Plaintiff presented the following additional testimony: (1) during the time
she was going through the miscarriages and prior to March 2021, she was not
"certifying [the required timesheets] for [her] weekly benefits;" (2) she was
working with people at Lincoln Tech who tested positive for COVID-19, but
were allowed to return to work after a few days, although she had no proof to
substantiate this claim; (3) she was not advised by any medical professional that
she should leave her job because of concerns about COVID-19; (4) she did not
provide Lincoln Tech with any medical documentation that the job caused or
aggravated any medical condition; (5) Lincoln Tech had a policy that if someone
tested positive for COVID-19 in the building, that person was required to
A-1423-23
4
quarantine for ten to fourteen days and show a negative test result before return,
and that everyone would evacuate the building so a cleaning crew could clean
the entire building, but those policies were never enforced; (6) she identified
another employee who was told by Lincoln Tech to return to work after ten days
even though she still had a positive test; (7) her job required her to check whether
students returning to the school after testing positive for COVID-19 had a fever;
(8) some of the students she interacted with told her that within a few days after
they tested positive for COVID-19 they were informed by a Lincoln Tech
director to come back to school because the students needed "hands on time" in
the classroom; (9) she complained to her supervisor about the COVID -19
conditions but her complaints were never addressed; (10) she left work because
her employer failed to adhere to quarantine requirements and she worried she
would contract COVID-19 and her pregnancy would be affected; (11) shortly
after she left her job, she tested positive for COVID-19 and later had a
miscarriage; (12) none of the students she tested had a high temperature or fever,
including those who had tested positive for COVID-19; and (13) she believed
the students were lying when they filled out forms stating they did not have
COVID-19 or symptoms associated with it.
A-1423-23
5
On August 2, 2023, the Tribunal found that plaintiff had not established
good cause for the late filing of the appeal and, therefore, the Tribunal did not
have jurisdiction to rule on its merits. The Tribunal stated
while the Tribunal is sympathetic to the reasons . . .
[plaintiff] did not file the appeal within the limits of
N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(b)(l), . . . [plaintiff's] reasons are not
considered good cause for filing a late appeal because
the fact[s] before the Tribunal show[] that she [was]
able to address other aspect[s] of her life during the
period before filing the appeal on [March 19, 2021]. As
such, the appeal is late without good cause and the
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the
appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding plaintiff's voluntarily leaving work
and her disqualification of benefits from November 15, 2020, as well as
plaintiff's ineligibility for PUA benefits through January 21, 2021. However,
the Tribunal found it "ha[d] jurisdiction over . . . [plaintiff's] eligibility for . . .
[PUA] benefits from [January 24, 2021]" to September 4, 2021 (when the
program ended).
The Tribunal found plaintiff was ineligible for PUA benefits during the
period from January 24, 2021, through September 4, 2021, as she was not
unemployed due to one of the COVID-19 related reasons identified in Section
2102(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the CARES Act. The Tribunal reasoned:
A-1423-23
6
[Plaintiff] contends a myriad of reasons why her mental
health and sanity were being affected due to the
employer not following the [Centers for Disease
Control] C[OVID]-19 protocols in the workplace and
she was concerned about C[OVID]-19 due to her
pregnancy. Here, while the Tribunal is sympathetic to
. . . [plaintiff's] contentions as to her concerns about
C[OVID]-19, it does not negate the fact that she was
not advised by any medical professional to leave her job
due to her concerns about C[OVID]-19 at the time she
left the job. Although . . . [plaintiff] tested positive for
C[OVID]-19 after leaving the job and was negative for
C[OVID]-19 prior to the date of the mailing of the
determination of the Deputy, the Appeal Tribunal only
has jurisdiction over the claimant's eligibility for
benefits and [PUA] from [January 24, 2021]. Hence,
. . . [plaintiff] is ineligible for . . . [PUA] benefits . . .
from [January 24, 2021] through [September 4, 2021],
as . . . [plaintiff] was not unemployed due to one of the
COVID-19 related reasons identified in Section 2102
(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the CARES Act.
Plaintiff appealed the Tribunal's decision to the Board. On November 29,
2023, the Board modified the Tribunal's decision, finding that plaintiff's stated
reasons for filing her appeal late did constitute good cause. The Board reasoned:
Under sworn oath, . . . [plaintiff] testified that she was
unable to deal with . . . day to day tasks until she
appealed on March 19, 2021[,] due to the nature of her
condition. Since this was not within her control, we
consider her appeal as late with good cause under
N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(b)(1).
Therefore, the Board considered the merits of plaintiff's appeal.
A-1423-23
7
The Board found plaintiff was disqualified for regular unemployment
benefits as of November 15, 2020, because she left work voluntarily without
good cause attributable to the work. The Board cited to Wojcik v Board of
Review, 58 N.J. 341, 344 (1971), where the Supreme Court held that an
individual must show medical proof that their health condition was attributable
to or aggravated by their work. The Board explained:
In this case, no medical proof showing that . . .
[plaintiff's] health condition was directly attributable to
the work or was aggravated by the work itself was
submitted. This was further supported by . . .
[plaintiff's] own testimony that a medical doctor did not
advise her to leave the job for her mental health.
Additionally, there was no attempt made by . . .
[plaintiff] to preserve her employment prior to
submitting her resignation in order for the employer to
acco[m]modate her. Since . . . [plaintiff] has not met
the burden to demonstrate that the working conditions
were so abnormal or adversely affected her health, she
is disqualified for unemployment benefits as of
November 15, 2020 for leaving work voluntarily
without good cause attributable to the work under
N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a).
Additionally, the Board found plaintiff was ineligible for PUA benefits
from November 22, 2020, through December 5, 2020, and January 3, 2021,
through September 4, 2021. The Board determined plaintiff did not satisfy any
of the criteria for PUA benefits under Section 2102(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the CARES
A-1423-23
8
Act. The Board explained that a fear of being exposed to COVID-19 is
insufficient to qualify for PUA benefits.
However, the Board found that plaintiff did qualify for PUA benefits from
December 6, 2020, through January 2, 2021, as she provided evidence that she
tested positive for COVID-19 on December 8, 2020, and negative for the virus
on January 1, 2021.
II.
On appeal, plaintiff contends the Board erred in denying her
unemployment and the additional PUA benefits.
Our review of quasi-judicial agency determinations is limited. Allstars
Auto. Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 234 N.J. 150, 157 (2018) (citing
Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011)). We
"review[] agency decisions under an arbitrary and capricious standard."
Zimmerman v. Sussex Cnty. Educ. Servs. Comm'n, 237 N.J. 465, 475 (2019).
The party challenging the administrative action bears the burden of making that
showing. Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014).
On appeal, the judicial role in reviewing all administrative actions is
generally limited to three inquiries:
A-1423-23
9
(1) whether the agency's action violates express or
implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency
follow the law;
(2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to
support the findings on which the agency based its
action; and
(3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the
facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion
that could not reasonably have been made on a showing
of the relevant factors.
[Allstars Auto. Grp., 234 N.J. at 157 (quoting In re
Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011)).]
We begin by considering plaintiff's contentions regarding the Board's
denial of unemployment benefits. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) provides that an
individual is disqualified for benefits "[f]or the week in which the individual has
left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work, and for each
week thereafter until the individual becomes reemployed." "Good cause" means
"cause sufficient to justify an employee's voluntarily leaving the ranks of the
employed and joining the ranks of the unemployed." Brady v. Bd. of Rev., 152
N.J. 197, 214 (1997). See also N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(b) (defining good cause).
If a claimant leaves their job for "good cause attributable to [the] work,"
they are eligible for benefits, but if the claimant left for personal reasons,
A-1423-23
10
however compelling, they are disqualified under the statute. Utley v. Bd. of
Rev., Dep't of Lab., 194 N.J. 534, 543 (2008) (alteration in original).
Plaintiff's argument that the Board misstated some facts is unavailing. In
plaintiff's letter to Lincoln Tech providing two weeks' notice of her decision to
leave her job, she stated she was doing so because her "mental health and sanity
[we]re being affected." There is no mention of any concerns regarding Lincoln
Tech's handling of COVID-19 in its workplace. She did not provide any
documentation or testimony that a medical professional advised her to leave her
job. Instead, it appears she left for personal reasons.
As plaintiff has not met her burden in showing that the Board 's decision
was arbitrary or capricious or that its determination was unsupported by
sufficient credible evidence in the record, we discern no reason to overturn its
decision regarding unemployment benefits.
We turn then to plaintiff's assertion that she was entitled to additional PUA
benefits than awarded.
"The CARES Act expanded eligibility, under the PUA program, for
payment of benefits for certain categories of individuals." Sullivan v. Bd. of
Rev., Dep't of Lab., 471 N.J. Super. 147, 153 (App. Div. 2022).
A-1423-23
11
A "covered individual" is defined under the CARES Act, in pertinent part,
as an individual who:
(i) is not eligible for regular compensation or extended
benefits under State or Federal law or pandemic
emergency unemployment compensation under. . . [15
U.S.C. § 9025], including an individual who has
exhausted all rights to regular unemployment or
extended benefits under State or Federal law or
pandemic emergency unemployment compensation
under . . . [15 U.S.C. § 9025];
(ii) provides self-certification that the individual—
(I) is otherwise able to work and available
for work within the meaning of applicable
State law, except the individual is
unemployed, partially unemployed, or
unable or unavailable to work because—
(aa) the individual has been
diagnosed with COVID-19 or is
experiencing symptoms of COVID-
19 and seeking a medical diagnosis;
(bb) a member of the individual's
household has been diagnosed with
COVID-19;
(cc) the individual is providing care
for a family member or a member of
the individual's household who has
been diagnosed with COVID-19;
(dd) a child or other person in the
household for which the individual
has primary caregiving
A-1423-23
12
responsibility is unable to attend
school or another facility that is
closed as a direct result of the
COVID-19 public health emergency
and such school or facility care is
required for the individual to work;
(ee) the individual is unable to reach
the place of employment because of
a quarantine imposed as a direct
result of the COVID-19 public health
emergency;
(ff) the individual is unable to reach
the place of employment because the
individual has been advised by a
health care provider to self-
quarantine due to concerns related to
COVID-19;
(gg) the individual was scheduled to
commence employment and does not
have a job or is unable to reach the
job as a direct result of the COVID-
19 public health emergency;
(hh) the individual has become the
breadwinner or major support for a
household because the head of the
household has died as a direct result
of COVID-19;
(ii) the individual has to quit his or
her job as a direct result of COVID-
19;
(jj) the individual's place of
employment is closed as a direct
A-1423-23
13
result of the COVID-19 public health
emergency; or
(kk) the individual meets any
additional criteria established by the
Secretary for unemployment
assistance under this section . . . .
[15 U.S.C. § 9021(a)(3)(A).]
Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to support qualification for
benefits under the Act other than her positive COVID-19 test in December 2020,
that occurred several weeks after she left work. In its November 2023 decision,
the Board found plaintiff was eligible for PUA benefits from the date of her
positive test to the date of her negative test—December 6, 2020 to January 2,
2021. Prior to the positive test and after the negative test, plaintiff did not fall
within any of the enumerated statutory categories as her decision to stop working
was not one of the COVID-19 related reasons delineated under the CARES Act.
Her fear of being exposed to COVID-19 does not qualify her for PUA benefits.
The record supports the Board's determination that plaintiff was ineligible for
CARES Act benefits other than the delineated dates. Therefore, the Board's
decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Affirmed.
A-1423-23
14