NJ Appellate Division clarifies applicability of CARES Act in context of unemployment benefits deemed erroneously awarded.

This matter involved the petitioner’s application to receive unemployment benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), 15 U.S.C. 9021 §§ 9001 to 9141. The petitioner appealed from a decision of the Board of Review, Department of Labor and Workforce Development that required him to reimburse the unemployment benefits he received over a period of eight weeks in 2020, reasoning, in pertinent part, that the petitioner was not qualified to receive such benefits under the Act because he left his employment voluntarily. 

On appeal, the petitioner claimed he was precluded from having to pay the funds back, arguing the Division was estopped from seeking a refund since it “erroneously paid the amounts and should not benefit from that mistake.” In response, the Appellate Division examined the CARES Act and affirmed the Agency’s determination that the petitioner was not qualified to receive unemployment benefits under the Act. 

In doing so, the Appellate Division noted that since the petitioner did not argue that he fell within one of the CARES Act’s categories, voluntarily left his job and “was not unemployed for reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic[,]” as articulated in the CARES Act, “nor unemployed otherwise under the PUA[,]” he was ineligible for unemployment benefits, and the Agency’s reimbursement request was proper. 

In light of this decision, defense counsel should be cognizant of the categories articulated by the CARES Act under which unemployment benefits can be sought. 
 

^{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, April 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}