Alfonso v. Board of Review, Dept. of Labor and Industry

• Decision Date: 02 December 1980
• Citation: 176 N.J.Super. 493,423 A.2d 1006
• Parties: Zoila ALFONSO, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, State of New Jersey andKorvettes, Respondents.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 493

176 N.J.Super. 493

423 A.2d 1006

Zoila ALFONSO, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, State of New Jersey andKorvettes, Respondents.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued Nov. 5, 1980.

Decided Dec. 2, 1980.

Jose E. Pardo, II, North Bergen, for appellant (W. Marshall Prettyman, Essex-Newark Legal Services, Newark, attorney).

Michael J. Haas, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent Bd. of Review (John J. Degnan, Atty. Gen., attorney; Michael S. Bokar, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel; Donna J. Kelly, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief).

Before Judges FRITZ, POLOW and JOELSON.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant's claim for unemployment benefits was denied at the local claims office level on the ground that she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work whereby she was disqualified for benefits. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). That determination contained explicit notice that any appeal must be in writing and must be received or postmarked within seven days after delivery of the determination. She appealed to the Appeal Tribunal. The Appeal Tribunal determined, in findings that are not here disputed, that the disqualifying determination was delivered to appellant on September 25, 1979. Inasmuch as her appeal to the Appeal Tribunal was not filed until October 5, 1979, the Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was deprived of jurisdiction by the late filing. N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(b)(1); Lowden v. Board of Review, 78 N.J.Super. 467, 189 A.2d 224 (App.Div.1963). The Board of Review affirmed.

Appellant's argument before us is premised upon the fact that she neither speaks nor reads English and that since the notice of the determination was written in English, she did not receive sufficient notice to commence the running of the statutory time for appeal. Her arguments are framed in terms of the denial of "procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution" with the consequence that "respondent has violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000d and the ensuing regulations under 29 C.F.R. 31.3(b) (1)(ii)(iv); (b)(6)(i)(ii)." A logical extension of appellant's argument to us is that notice cannot be imputed to a claimant for the purpose of the statutory time period unless that person has been served with a notice written in a language which the person so served can read or, in the alternative, unless the Division causes the notice to be read to the claimant in a language which the claimant understands.

We have no doubt that either the Legislature or administrative regulation might properly and well provide for multilingual notices. But until this occurs, we also have no...