CHRISTINE BERTOLINI VS. BOARD OF REVIEW (BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4664-17T4
CHRISTINE BERTOLINI,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
and HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondents.
__________________________
Submitted August 13, 2019 – Decided August 20, 2019
Before Judges Messano and Natali.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of
Labor, Docket No. 143,577.
Christine Bertolini, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Board of Review (Melissa Dutton Schaffer,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Aaron J. Creuz,
Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Respondent Hopewell Township Board of Education
has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Christine Bertolini worked as a "one-on-one" teacher's aide for the
Hopewell Township Board of Education (BOE) from October 17, 2016 through
January 19, 2018. Bertolini resigned in writing on January 21, 2018, claiming
she was subjected to "constant verbal and emotional abuse and taunting" during
the prior year "because of [her] efforts in protecting a child with special need s
from being emotionally abused and overlooked in his education[.]" The Deputy
Director determined Bertolini was eligible for benefits. The BOE appealed, and
the Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) conducted a telephonic hearing, at which
Bertolini, Stephanie Kuntz, the Business Administrator and BOE Secretary,
School Superintendent Meghan Lammersen, and Assistant Principal John
Ogbin, testified.
During the 2016-17 school year, Bertolini was assigned to a student, C.B.,
who is autistic.1 Bertolini said she reported to others how C.B. was "ignore[d]
. . . [and] pass[ed] over" by the classroom teacher. In March 2017, she and C.B
1
We use the child's initials to maintain confidentiality. C.B.'s mother, Cr.B.,
briefly testified at the hearing before the Tribunal. She said that other staff
members to whom her son was assigned were "targeted" like Bertolini.
However, Cr.B. admitted she had not witnessed any of this conduct.
A-4664-17T4
2
were moved to another classroom with a different teacher, "[a]nd everything was
great with that teacher." Bertolini moved to another classroom, with a different
teacher and different student, for the 2017-18 school year. Nevertheless, she
claimed she was "taunted" on daily basis, "laughed at," and whenever she
"walk[ed] in a room, somebody walk[ed] out." School personnel failed to
address her concerns, and she became the subject of false complaints about her
performance.
Citing "the hostile work environment . . . [she had] repeatedly reported to
[Lammersen] . . . Ogbin" and others, Bertolini resigned. Although Bertolini said
the hostile work environment adversely affected her health, she did not produce
any medical evidence supporting that assertion.
Kuntz testified she was unaware of Bertolini's "hostile work environment"
claims until she received the resignation letter. Bertolini acknowledged never
sending any complaints to Kuntz. Lammersen also denied knowledge and
testified that Bertolini was assigned to another student for the 2017-18 school
year in the usual course, because "the instructional aides are reassigned to
different students based on scheduling needs. They're never placed with the
. . . same student year after year." Lammersen was "shock[ed]" to receive
Bertolini's letter of resignation. Ogbin was aware of only one complaint
A-4664-17T4
3
Bertolini made in an email dated September 25, 2017. That complaint dealt with
a teacher's criticism of Bertolini's supervision of a child on the school
playground.
The Tribunal concluded Bertolini's contention of being taunted because of
her support for C.B. was "irrelevant," because Bertolini was no longer assigned
to the student after the 2016-17 school year, although she "ke[pt] herself
involved in the happenings of the student even after she was taken out of the
classroom with the student." It also found that Bertolini never "took her specific
personal concerns to the employer prior to her resignation letter to afford them
the opportunity to rectify her situation." The Tribunal concluded Bertolini's
reasons for resigning were insufficient, and she failed to provide any proof of a
medical condition caused by or aggravated by the workplace. It concluded
Bertolini "left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to [the] work."
The Board affirmed the Tribunal's findings and conclusion, and this appeal
followed.
Bertolini argues that the Tribunal failed to consider evidence she offered
to support her claim and erred in accepting "conflicting statements" offered by
the BOE. We disagree and affirm.
A-4664-17T4
4
"The judicial capacity to review administrative agency decisions is
limited." Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). "[I]n reviewing
the factual findings made in an unemployment compensation proceeding, the
test is not whether [we] would come to the same conclusion if the original
determination was [ours] to make, but rather whether the factfinder could
reasonably so conclude upon the proofs." Ibid. (first alteration in original)
(quoting Charatan v. Bd. of Review, Dep't of Labor, 200 N.J. Super. 74, 79 (App.
Div. 1985)). "If the Board's factual findings are supported 'by sufficient credible
evidence, [we] are obliged to accept them.'" Ibid. (quoting Self v. Bd. of
Review, Dep't of Labor & Indus., 91 N.J. 453, 459 (1982)). Only if the Board's
action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable should it be disturbed. Ibid.N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) disqualifies an individual from receiving
unemployment benefits for a period if "the individual has left work voluntarily
without good cause attributable to such work." "In applying [N.J.S.A.] 43:21-
5(a), a court must 'differentiate between (1) a voluntary quit with good cause
attributable to the work and (2) a voluntary quit without good cause attributable
to the work.'" Brady, 152 N.J. at 213-14 (quoting Self, 91 N.J. at 457). Although
"good cause" is undefined, the Court has stated:
The test of "ordinary common sense and prudence"
must be utilized to determine whether an employee's
A-4664-17T4
5
decision to leave work constitutes good cause. Such
cause "must be compelled by real, substantial and
reasonable circumstances not imaginary, trifling and
whimsical ones." A claimant has the "responsibility to
do whatever is necessary and reasonable in order to
remain employed."
[Id. at 214 (citations omitted).]
"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, Dep't of Labor & Indus., 192 N.J.
Super. 284, 288 (App. Div. 1983) (quoting Medwick v. Bd. of Review, Dep't of
Labor & Indus., 69 N.J. Super. 338, 345 (App. Div. 1961)). The claimant bears
the burden of proving good cause. Brady, 152 N.J. at 218.
Bertolini contends that the Tribunal, and, in turn, the Board, ignored
evidence she provided that documented the taunting and harassment she
endured. It is fair to say the documents supplied in appellant's appendix
demonstrate a tense relationship between Bertolini and the teacher assi gned to
C.B. during the 2016-17 school year. Bertolini testified, however, "everything
was great" after she moved to another teacher's classroom in March 2017.
Ogbin and Kuntz were copied on a June 2017 email from this successor
teacher that demonstrates her concerns about other staff members' "obsession"
with C.B., his aide, which we assume was Bertolini, and the successor teacher's
A-4664-17T4
6
"classro[o]m activities, . . . procedures, . . . conduct and responsibilities as a
teacher[.]"
However, the record contains only two emails sent by Bertolini during the
2017-18 school year. One was the September 2017 email Ogbin referenced in
his testimony. It does not mention C.B., reflects Bertolini's request for
"clarification and guidance" regarding her duties with her new student and
inquires whether, given prior false reports by "a few teachers," she was the
subject of a complaint from a teacher that would be recorded in her "performance
file."
Another, from December 2017, deals with Bertolini's dissatisfaction with
the processing of her workers' compensation claim. In that email, Bertolini
complains about having been placed with a student whose violent tendencies
were known. The email was not directed to Kuntz, Lammersen or Ogbin.
In short, there is little in the record, except for Bertolini's self-serving
testimony, that demonstrates more than her "[m]ere dissatisfaction with working
conditions" immediately prior to her January 2018 resignation. Domenico, 192
N.J. Super. at 288. Additionally, her claims that the stress of the workplace
caused her adverse medical consequences were unsubstantiated. N.J.A.C.
12:17-9.3(d) provides that "[w]hen an individual leaves work for health or
A-4664-17T4
7
medical reasons, medical certification shall be required to support a finding of
good cause attributable to [such] work." Absent such unequivocal medical
evidence, the decision to terminate her employment is deemed to be without
good cause attributable to the work. Wojcik v. Bd. of Review, Dep't of Labor
& Indus., 58 N.J. 341, 344 (1971).
Bertolini also contends the Board credited the contradictory testimony of
the BOE's representatives regarding their lack of knowledge of any "hostile
work environment." However, the Tribunal and the Board found those
representatives to be credible. "The appellate court must also give due regard
to the opportunity of the one who heard the witnesses to judge their credibility."
Logan v. Bd. of Review, Dep't of Labor, 299 N.J. Super. 346, 348 (App. Div.
1997) (citing Jackson v. Concord Co., 54 N.J. 113, 117 (1969)).
Affirmed.
A-4664-17T4
8