Credit: Sergey Novikov/Shutterstock.com

A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that an attorney is entitled to unemployment benefits after her part-time job was eliminated and child care considerations kept her from accepting a full-time position.

The appeals court rejected a challenge to a decision from the Department of Labor's Board of Review by the attorney's former employer, Toni Belford Damiano, who heads a six-lawyer family law firm in Little Falls. Damiano asserted that benefits should be withheld because the former employee, Nicole Casciola, failed to seek full-time child care.

The appeals court said Casciola's claim of child care problems was "entirely plausible considering she had three young children in her care." But difficulties arranging full-time child care were a consequence of the elimination of Casciola's part-time position, which was "the catalyst of her departure," the appeals court said.

The Board of Review found Casciola's case akin to Utley v. Board of Review, a 2008 New Jersey Supreme Court case awarding unemployment benefits to a blind factory worker after a change in work hours left him unable to take public transportation to work.

On appeal, Damiano argued Utley was misapplied because the claimant in that case did everything possible to keep his job, while Casciola did not. She also claimed the board ignored case law where employees who made personal decisions not to work were denied benefits.

The panel of Judges Mary Gibbons Whipple, Greta Gooden Brown and Hany Mawla said the Board of Review did not misconstrue Utley. The judges noted that case's holding that an individual who leaves for good cause attributable to work and not personal reasons is entitled to employment benefits. Moreover, the panel noted the Utley decision found that an employee who leaves work for several reasons, one of which constitutes good cause attributable to such work, shall not be disqualified for benefits.

The panel found eliminating Casciola's part-time job "set into motion a chain of events leading to Casciola's inability to work due to the change in hours, as was the case with Utley."

Besides the unemployment dispute, Casciola filed a suit in state Superior Court in Essex County in February 2018 accusing Damiano of gender discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation and failure to accommodate a disability for demonstrating pregnancy animus. That case is in discovery.

Casciola was sanctioned in October for failure to comply with a discovery request over a recording she made of a meeting with Damiano concerning her work schedule.

April Gilmore of the Epstein Law Firm in Rochelle Park represented Damiano in the unemployment appeal. Gilmore did not respond to a request for comment about the ruling. Her law partner, Michael Gilmore, who represents Damiano in the discrimination suit, said Damiano accepted the unemployment ruling but added it "supports our position in the other case," and "supports what we said all along, that this is someone who did not want to work full time."

The Attorney General's Office did not immediately comment on the Appellate Division ruling.

Casciola did not file a brief in the unemployment case. Her lawyer in the discrimination case, Kevin Barber of Niedweske Barber in Morristown, had no comment.