NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-1065-22
LAURA WAGNER,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT and J.P. MORGAN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT,
Respondents. _________________________
Argued February 7, 2024 – Decided February 28, 2024
Before Judges Accurso and Walcott-Henderson.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Division of Unemployment Insurance, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No. 257891.
Laura Wagner, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Eric Alexander Zimmerman, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Board of Review (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Eric Alexander Zimmerman, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Laura Wagner appeals from the final decision of the Board of Review
disqualifying her from extended benefits provided under the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 9001 to 9141,
and rendering her liable to refund $6,468 in Pandemic Unemployment
Assistance (PUA) benefits mistakenly paid to her. Wagner contends she "was
always in the window of eligibility to receive the extension of benefits ." We
disagree and affirm.
The essential facts are undisputed. Wagner was employed by J.P.
Morgan Chase as a project manager from June 30, 2010, to May 10, 2018,
when she was laid off. Wagner filed a claim for unemployment benefits on
May 6, 2018, which established a weekly benefit rate of $681 and a maximum
benefit amount of $17,706. She exhausted those benefits after twenty-six
weeks on November 10, 2018.
At the time Wagner exhausted her benefits, the Division of
Unemployment Insurance advised her there was no additional federal or State
assistance available through unemployment insurance. The Division, however,
A-1065-22 2 further advised that "[i]f, in the future, any additional unemployment benefits
become available, all potentially eligible individuals will be notified." The
Division also suggested Wagner "check for any potential federal or state
extensions of Unemployment Insurance benefits or any updates on the
situation by monitoring the Unemployment Insurance website at the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development."
Wagner monitored the website as suggested. On April 12, 2020, having
still not found work, Wagner saw the following on the Department of Labor
website "Benefit Extensions" page:
SCENARIO A: Do these describe you?
1. On a date after July 8, 2018, I filed for unemployment.
2. I have not worked since the dates in 2018-2020 when I collected unemployment.
3. I have exhausted my balance OR my benefit year ended on my most recent claim.
4. I did not receive 13 weeks of PEUC [Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation] on any claim.
If these describe you, certify for weekly benefits on your [illegible] PEUC will be added to an eligible claim automatically.
A-1065-22 3 Believing she qualified for PEUC benefits after the start of the COVID-
19 pandemic under "Scenario A," Wagner filed a claim on April 12, 2020, for
extended benefits online. When she did not receive confirmation of that claim,
she filed a new claim on April 19, 2020, also online. Several days later,
Wagner received from the Department of Labor a document entitled:
"Unemployment Insurance Instructions and Appointment Notice" advising
Wagner she would claim unemployment benefits for the first time on April 29,
2020.
Wagner claims she did not collect benefits in April because she was
"locked out of [her] account and unable to certify for 3 months." After seeking
the assistance of her local senator, whose "office opened a case on [her] behalf
with their liaison at the Department of Labor and unlocked [her] account,"
Wagner began receiving a weekly benefit of $231 in PUA benefits, which
required either wages in 2019 and 2020 or an offer of employment withdrawn
because of the pandemic. See 15 U.S.C. § 9025(a)(2)(A); 15 U.S.C. §
9025(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(ii). Wagner does not dispute that she was not eligible for
PUA benefits.
Believing she should have been receiving the same level of benefits she
received in 2018, Wagner again contacted her senator's office, which assisted
A-1065-22 4 in setting up a "monetary appointment" in November 2020 to review her
benefits. Shortly thereafter, Wagner received notices from the Department of
Labor advising she was not eligible for the unemployment benefits she had
received since filing in April 2020, and requesting a refund of the total sum of
$6,468. The senator's office advised Wagner she received the notices in error
and should ignore them.
In March 2021, the Department of Labor mailed Wagner a "Notice of
Benefit Determination Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA)" regarding
her April 19, 2020 claim and her request for adjudication to increase the
weekly benefit rate. The letter stated "[y]our claim has been reviewed and
based on the information you provided, you do not qualify for an increase to
your weekly benefit rate." Appellant subsequently obtained a hearing before
the Appeal Tribunal on July 30, 2021, and testified to the facts presented here.
Following the hearing, the Appeal Tribunal affirmed the Department's
decision that Wagner was not eligible for any pandemic-related extension of
benefits. The Tribunal found Wagner exhausted her benefits on her May 6,
2018 claim on November 10, 2018, and was not entitled to PEUC on her 2018
claim because it was filed prior to July 8, 2018, meaning her benefit year
expired prior to July 1, 2019. The Appeal Tribunal also found, and Wagner
A-1065-22 5 does not dispute, that she had not been attached to the labor market since
May 10, 2018.1 The Tribunal found Wagner ineligible for PUA benefits under
the CARES Act because she did not fall into any of the categories necessary to
receive PUA benefits enumerated by the statute. See 15 U.S.C. §
9021(a)(3)(A)(ii). Notwithstanding Wagner's receipt of PUA benefits in good
faith, the Appeal Tribunal found the law unequivocally required Wagner repay
the $6,468 in PUA benefits she received from April 25, 2020 through October
31, 2020. See Fischer v. Board of Review, 123 N.J. Super. 263, 266 (App.
Div. 1973) (holding the claimant was obliged to refund erroneously paid
unemployment benefits, notwithstanding she applied for them in good faith).
Wagner appeals, claiming the Department of Labor "incorrectly
processed [her] benefit claim as a PUA, instead of the extension of benefits"
for which she applied. She further argues "[t]he Scenario A website posting
does not indicate that [she] needed all 4 bullet points to be eligible for an
extension of benefits," and her receipt of unemployment benefits after July 1,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-1065-22
LAURA WAGNER,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT and J.P. MORGAN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT,
Respondents. _________________________
Argued February 7, 2024 – Decided February 28, 2024
Before Judges Accurso and Walcott-Henderson.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Division of Unemployment Insurance, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No. 257891.
Laura Wagner, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Eric Alexander Zimmerman, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Board of Review (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Eric Alexander Zimmerman, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Laura Wagner appeals from the final decision of the Board of Review
disqualifying her from extended benefits provided under the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 9001 to 9141,
and rendering her liable to refund $6,468 in Pandemic Unemployment
Assistance (PUA) benefits mistakenly paid to her. Wagner contends she "was
always in the window of eligibility to receive the extension of benefits ." We
disagree and affirm.
The essential facts are undisputed. Wagner was employed by J.P.
Morgan Chase as a project manager from June 30, 2010, to May 10, 2018,
when she was laid off. Wagner filed a claim for unemployment benefits on
May 6, 2018, which established a weekly benefit rate of $681 and a maximum
benefit amount of $17,706. She exhausted those benefits after twenty-six
weeks on November 10, 2018.
At the time Wagner exhausted her benefits, the Division of
Unemployment Insurance advised her there was no additional federal or State
assistance available through unemployment insurance. The Division, however,
A-1065-22 2 further advised that "[i]f, in the future, any additional unemployment benefits
become available, all potentially eligible individuals will be notified." The
Division also suggested Wagner "check for any potential federal or state
extensions of Unemployment Insurance benefits or any updates on the
situation by monitoring the Unemployment Insurance website at the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development."
Wagner monitored the website as suggested. On April 12, 2020, having
still not found work, Wagner saw the following on the Department of Labor
website "Benefit Extensions" page:
SCENARIO A: Do these describe you?
1. On a date after July 8, 2018, I filed for unemployment.
2. I have not worked since the dates in 2018-2020 when I collected unemployment.
3. I have exhausted my balance OR my benefit year ended on my most recent claim.
4. I did not receive 13 weeks of PEUC [Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation] on any claim.
If these describe you, certify for weekly benefits on your [illegible] PEUC will be added to an eligible claim automatically.
A-1065-22 3 Believing she qualified for PEUC benefits after the start of the COVID-
19 pandemic under "Scenario A," Wagner filed a claim on April 12, 2020, for
extended benefits online. When she did not receive confirmation of that claim,
she filed a new claim on April 19, 2020, also online. Several days later,
Wagner received from the Department of Labor a document entitled:
"Unemployment Insurance Instructions and Appointment Notice" advising
Wagner she would claim unemployment benefits for the first time on April 29,
2020.
Wagner claims she did not collect benefits in April because she was
"locked out of [her] account and unable to certify for 3 months." After seeking
the assistance of her local senator, whose "office opened a case on [her] behalf
with their liaison at the Department of Labor and unlocked [her] account,"
Wagner began receiving a weekly benefit of $231 in PUA benefits, which
required either wages in 2019 and 2020 or an offer of employment withdrawn
because of the pandemic. See 15 U.S.C. § 9025(a)(2)(A); 15 U.S.C. §
9025(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(ii). Wagner does not dispute that she was not eligible for
PUA benefits.
Believing she should have been receiving the same level of benefits she
received in 2018, Wagner again contacted her senator's office, which assisted
A-1065-22 4 in setting up a "monetary appointment" in November 2020 to review her
benefits. Shortly thereafter, Wagner received notices from the Department of
Labor advising she was not eligible for the unemployment benefits she had
received since filing in April 2020, and requesting a refund of the total sum of
$6,468. The senator's office advised Wagner she received the notices in error
and should ignore them.
In March 2021, the Department of Labor mailed Wagner a "Notice of
Benefit Determination Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA)" regarding
her April 19, 2020 claim and her request for adjudication to increase the
weekly benefit rate. The letter stated "[y]our claim has been reviewed and
based on the information you provided, you do not qualify for an increase to
your weekly benefit rate." Appellant subsequently obtained a hearing before
the Appeal Tribunal on July 30, 2021, and testified to the facts presented here.
Following the hearing, the Appeal Tribunal affirmed the Department's
decision that Wagner was not eligible for any pandemic-related extension of
benefits. The Tribunal found Wagner exhausted her benefits on her May 6,
2018 claim on November 10, 2018, and was not entitled to PEUC on her 2018
claim because it was filed prior to July 8, 2018, meaning her benefit year
expired prior to July 1, 2019. The Appeal Tribunal also found, and Wagner
A-1065-22 5 does not dispute, that she had not been attached to the labor market since
May 10, 2018.1 The Tribunal found Wagner ineligible for PUA benefits under
the CARES Act because she did not fall into any of the categories necessary to
receive PUA benefits enumerated by the statute. See 15 U.S.C. §
9021(a)(3)(A)(ii). Notwithstanding Wagner's receipt of PUA benefits in good
faith, the Appeal Tribunal found the law unequivocally required Wagner repay
the $6,468 in PUA benefits she received from April 25, 2020 through October
31, 2020. See Fischer v. Board of Review, 123 N.J. Super. 263, 266 (App.
Div. 1973) (holding the claimant was obliged to refund erroneously paid
unemployment benefits, notwithstanding she applied for them in good faith).
Wagner appeals, claiming the Department of Labor "incorrectly
processed [her] benefit claim as a PUA, instead of the extension of benefits"
for which she applied. She further argues "[t]he Scenario A website posting
does not indicate that [she] needed all 4 bullet points to be eligible for an
extension of benefits," and her receipt of unemployment benefits after July 1,
2018, "clearly placed [her] in the window" for receipt of PEUC benefits.
Finally, she contends that the Department of Labor is seeking a refund in
excess of the unemployment compensation she received by including in its
1 Wagner advised at oral argument that she has since become reemployed. A-1065-22 6 demand the taxes the State withheld on each payment. We do not agree
Wagner established her entitlement to benefits or that the Department of
Labor's refund calculation is incorrect.
Our review of administrative agency decisions is limited. In re
Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011). The burden of proof in unemployment
compensation proceedings is on the claimant seeking benefits. Makutoff v.
Bd. of Rev., 427 N.J. Super. 218, 223 (App. Div. 2012). The agency's
determination carries a presumption of correctness, and the claimant bears a
substantial burden of persuasion. Gloucester Cnty. Welfare Bd. v. N.J. Civ.
Serv. Comm'n, 93 N.J. 384, 390-91 (1983). "If the Board's factual findings are
supported 'by sufficient credible evidence, [we] are obliged to accept them.'"
Brady v. Bd. of Rev., 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997) (quoting Self v. Bd. of Rev., 91
N.J. 453, 459 (1982)). "Unless . . . the agency's action was arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, the agency's ruling should not be disturbed." Ibid.
Wagner's argument is not with the factfinder, it is with Congress.
Scenario A on the Department of Labor's website was patterned on section
2107 of the CARES Act which allowed states to enter agreements with the
United States Secretary of Labor to provide PEUC benefits to persons who:
(A) have exhausted all rights to regular compensation under the State law or under Federal law with respect
A-1065-22 7 to a benefit year (excluding any benefit year that ended before July 1, 2019); (B) have no rights to regular compensation with respect to a week under such law or any other State unemployment compensation law or to compensation under any other Federal law; (C) are not receiving compensation with respect to such week under the unemployment compensation law of Canada; and (D) are able to work, available to work, and actively seeking work.
[15 U.S.C. § 9025(a)(2)(A)-(D).]
There is no question but that Wagner exhausted her unemployment
benefits in a benefit year that ended before July 1, 2019. Wagner filed for
benefits on May 6, 2018, and her benefit year ended on May 4, 2019, per her
May 2018 claim determination, when no federal or State extended benefits
were available to her. Thus, she is statutorily ineligible for PEUC benefits
under the CARES Act. That she was receiving unemployment compensation
benefits during July through November of 2018 is immaterial because there is
no dispute her benefit year ended on May 4, 2019 — almost two months before
the statutory eligibility date for PEUC benefits established by Congress.
Wagner's claim that the Department miscalculated the amount she must
refund requires no discussion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The schedule of
overpayments the Department provided her states prominently that:
[g]arnishment and/or income tax amounts withheld were paid to other government agencies under your
A-1065-22 8 name and social security number. We cannot recoup this money from the courts or the Internal Revenue Service once it has been withheld. You are liable to this agency for these amounts. Income tax amounts can be returned only to you as part of your federal income tax refund.
We find no miscalculation and no error in the demand for repayment under the
version of the statute applicable at the time of decision. 2 Our decision is
without prejudice to any payment plan Wagner may seek to negotiate with the
Department of Labor.
Affirmed.
2 The version of N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(d) in effect when the Board issued its decision required the repayment of mistakenly paid unemployment benefits regardless of whether the error was on the part of the agency. N.J.S.A. 43:21- 16(d) (2017) (amended July 13, 2023). See also Bannan v. Bd. of Rev., 299 N.J. Super. 671, 674 (App. Div. 1997) (finding N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(d) "require[d] the full repayment of unemployment benefits received by an individual who, for any reason, regardless of good faith, was not actually entitled to those benefits"). A-1065-22 9