A worker who quits a job under immediate threat of termination may be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits, a New Jersey appeals court has ruled.

A three-judge Appellate Division panel, in a published decision issued on March 29, said unemployment compensation statutes and regulations do not always prohibit an employee who quits his or her job from receiving benefits.

“An employee need not wait to be fired when discharge is imminent. At that point, the employee may resign and still be eligible for benefits,” wrote Appellate Division Judge Mitchel Ostrer in Cottman v. Board of Review. Appellate Division Judges Jack Sabatino and Mary Whipple joined in the ruling.

The case involves Tamyra Cottman, who was a counselor at a group home operated by a company called Quality Management Associates, according to the court.

Just after completing her post-employment period, Cottman worked a shift that lasted from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. The mother of three special-needs children, she could not leave them unsupervised while she was at work, according to the ruling.

On Aug. 24, 2016, her babysitter abruptly quit, leaving her no immediate child care option.

The ruling said she spoke to her supervisor, who told her that she had to find her own shift replacement, and added that if she did not report to work as scheduled, she could be fired since she was just coming off probation.

Cottman, the ruling said, decided to resign her position in order to take care of her children, and to avoid being fired.

Cottman then applied for unemployment benefits, but was denied them by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development's Board of Review.

Cottman, representing herself, appealed and won.

Ostrer, in the ruling, noted that, under normal circumstances, leaving work for purposes of caring for children is “not good cause” for receiving unemployment compensation benefits.

However, Ostrer said, Cottman claimed she was forced to quit because she was under the clear impression that she would be fired unless she appeared for work on the day that her children would otherwise have been left without supervision.

Cottman testified before the board that she was threatened with termination, and the company did not dispute that testimony, Ostrer noted. She testified that she believed her termination was a “near certainty.”

“With few exceptions, leaving work for personal reasons unrelated to work, no matter how reasonable, disqualifies an employee from receiving unemployment benefits,” Ostrer said. “However, when an employee knows that he or she is about to be fired, the employee may quit without being ineligible.”

Reached March 30, Cottman, who now runs a cleaning service in Vineland, said she could not comment because she had not had a chance to read the opinion.

The New Jersey Attorney General's Office represented the board. It was closed for Good Friday, and officials there could not be reached for comment.