Preview:

a5033-06.opn.html
N.J.S.A. 43:21-60 and N.J.A.C. 12:23-5.1." In so holding, the Board of Review affirmed the Deputy's determination
that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits during training "on the ground that she was not permanently
separated from employment due to a substantial reduction in work opportunities in the claimant's job classification
at the former work-site." According to appellant, she:">
The status of this decision is unpublished
Original Wordprocessor Version
This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*.
(NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5033-06T35033-06T3
PATRICIA J. KEITH,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR and THE MANOR GROUP,
Respondents.
Submitted April 7, 2008 - Decided
Before Judges Stern and Collester.
On appeal from a final decision of the
Board of Review, Department of Labor and
Workforce Development, Docket No. 141,267.
Jeffrey R. Wilson and Associates, attorneys
for appellant (Mr. Wilson, on the brief).
Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Deputy Attorney
General, of counsel; John C. Turi, Deputy
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a5033-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 6:41:51 PM]




a5033-06.opn.html
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Claimant, Patricia J. Keith, appeals from the final administrative determination of the Board of Review, mailed on
April 17, 2007, affirming the decision of the Appeal Tribunal, determining that she "is ineligible for additional
benefits during training as provided by N.J.S.A. 43:21-60 and N.J.A.C. 12:23-5.1." In so holding, the Board of Review
affirmed the Deputy's determination that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits during training "on the
ground that she was not permanently separated from employment due to a substantial reduction in work
opportunities in the claimant's job classification at the former work-site." According to appellant, she:
was hired as an assistant manager at the California Apartments on March 23, 2005. The
parent company of the California Apartments is The Manor Group. Plaintiff was a full-
time employee, working Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on Saturday
from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. She was the only assistant manager of that worksite. A new
manager with a lot of experience was hired, and the position of assistant manager was
eliminated. Her last day on the job was July 13, 2006.
Plaintiff enrolled at Atlantic Cape Community College and became a student in the
"Work Force" program. She applied for additional unemployment benefits during
training.
We accept, for present purposes, the claimant's recitation of fact which was consistent with the Appeal Tribunal's
determination that her job was eliminated on July 13, 2006, and that unemployment benefits in the amount of
$10,478 were paid thereafter. The issue under review is whether or not she was entitled to "additional
unemployment benefits," in light of 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997); Mullarney v. Bd. of Review, 343 N.J. Super. 401, 406
(App. Div. 2001); Ford v. Bd. of Review, 287 N.J. Super. 281, 283 (App. Div. 1996); see also Bonilla v. Bd. of Review,
337 N.J. Super. 612 (App. Div. 2001) (affirming denial of additional benefits when claimant left job for health
reasons); Bose v. Bd. of Review, 303 N.J. Super. 619 (App. Div. 1997) (which does not involve wvWare/wvWare
version 1.0.3
-->
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a5033-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 6:41:51 PM]

Download a5033-06.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law