A New Jersey court has reversed a decision by the Board of Review that denied Jorge Feliciano's appeal for unemployment benefits. The ruling, issued on October 26, 2026, is significant for individuals facing language barriers and highlights the importance of due process in unemployment claims.

Feliciano, who primarily speaks Spanish and has limited English proficiency, filed for unemployment benefits after being terminated from his job at Kitchenall, LLC. He received a notice on May 7, 2024, stating he was ineligible for benefits due to insufficient earnings. However, he did not understand the notice and sought translation assistance before filing his appeal on May 29, 2024, which was one day late. The Board of Review upheld the dismissal of his appeal as untimely, leading Feliciano to challenge the decision in court.

The case, docketed as A-0491-25, centers on whether Feliciano's late appeal should have been considered based on the circumstances surrounding his language barrier. The court's ruling underscores the need for agencies to consider "good cause" exceptions for late filings, particularly in cases where claimants may not fully understand the process due to language limitations.

Background

Jorge Feliciano was employed by Kitchenall, LLC, until his termination, which he claims was unjust. The company alleged he was terminated for smelling of alcohol at work, which Feliciano denied. After losing his job, Feliciano filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the New Jersey Department of Labor on April 7, 2024. He received a notice of determination on May 7, stating he was ineligible for benefits.

Due to his limited English proficiency, Feliciano did not comprehend the notice's contents. He sought help from the Board of Social Services, which referred him to Legal Services of New Jersey. With their assistance, he filed his appeal on May 29, 2024, twenty-two days after the notice was mailed, exceeding the twenty-one-day deadline outlined in N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(b)(1).

The appeal was initially dismissed by the Department of Labor's Appeal Tribunal, which did not consider Feliciano's reasons for the delay. Feliciano then appealed to the Board of Review, which affirmed the Tribunal's decision without addressing the circumstances of his late filing or his claim of good cause.

The Ruling

The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division ruled in favor of Feliciano, vacating the Board's decision and remanding the case for further proceedings. The court emphasized that the 2022 amendment to N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(b)(1), which extended the appeal period from ten to twenty-one days, did not eliminate the need to consider good cause for late filings. Judge Bergman stated, "neither the amendment's plain language nor its legislative history demonstrate the legislature intended to displace the due process 'good cause' principles recognized by the Court in Rivera v. Board of Review, 127 N.J. 578 (1992)."

The court found that the Tribunal had received testimony regarding Feliciano's limited English proficiency and his efforts to seek translation assistance but failed to make any findings regarding good cause for the one-day delay. The court ruled that the agency's decisions were arbitrary and unreasonable, as they did not consider whether Feliciano had established good cause for his late filing.

Impact

This ruling is significant for future unemployment benefit cases in New Jersey, particularly for claimants who may face language barriers or other challenges that impede their ability to file appeals on time. The court's decision reinforces the necessity for administrative agencies to consider good cause exceptions, ensuring that due process rights are upheld even when claimants miss deadlines by a narrow margin.

The ruling may also set a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing that procedural deadlines should not infringe upon an individual's right to a fair hearing and access to benefits. This case highlights the importance of clear communication and understanding in the unemployment benefits process, particularly for non-English speakers.

What's Next

The case has been remanded to the Board of Review for further consideration of whether Feliciano can demonstrate good cause for his late filing. If the Board finds good cause, it will need to evaluate his appeal on its merits. The ruling can potentially be appealed further, but details regarding any related cases were not available in the court filing.