Rbiai Ouazene v. Board of Review and Dell Marketing LP
Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark
Ouazene,was fired from his employment and attempted to collect unemployment benefits. The deputy director found Ouazene eligible for benefits. Dell appealed, and a hearing occurred before the tribunal, which reversed the deputy’s decision.” Ouazene, appellant, was employed by Dell Marking LP as a systems information technology analyst form July 9, 2013 through October 9, 2015. Appellant completed all training and signed a contact prior to working with the company addressing and outlining the proper employee behaviors identified in the Company Code of Conduct. During appellant’s employment, Dell obtained a contract with the New York Police Department Narcotics Division to install computer systems. Since he was contracted, the NYPD underwent background checks, and had orientation regarding NYPD policies. The NYPD mandated the Dell Marketing employees take no photographs in the narcotics unit. NYPD reported to Dell that appellant had broken this rule and took a picture in the unit. Plaintiff claimed to only have taken one photo however eight additional photos were taken. Dell terminated Ouazene for misconduct, specifically for violating its policy requiring employees to cooperate and be truthful during an internal investigation. Ouazene subsequently filed a claim for unemployment benefits. The deputy director found Ouazene eligible for benefits. Dell appealed, and a hearing occurred before the tribunal, which reversed the deputy’s decision.”
Appellant claimed to the tribunal he had never signed any documents prohibiting from taking pictures of officers. The tribunal rejected most of appellant’s testimony, and found credible the testimony offered on behalf of Dell. Even without a written agreement appellant knew of the no photograph policy and broke it anyway by not surrendering their phones before entering. The tribunal also rejected appellant’s claim he had cleared by the NYPD since he deleted pictures off his phone before anyone could see them. the tribunal noted “simply because Ouazene was not indicted for a criminal action does not mean [he] did not violate company policy.” The tribunal concluded Ouazene’s discharge was for simple misconduct connected with his work, and consequently disqualified him for benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(b)
Appellant appealed the tribunal decision and the Board affirmed. On appeal, appellant repeated the arguments he raises before the tribunal. The administrative agency defines an act of simple misconduct requires, “willfulness, deliberateness, intention, and malice. The agency was content with the board’s decision to uphold the conclusions of the tribunal. Ouazene willfully, deliberately, and intentionally violated Dell’s policy. The circumstances prove he had knowledge of the policy, namely, the requirement Dell employees abandon their cellular telephones before entering the unit. “The evidence supported a finding Ouazene had committed simple misconduct as defined by N.J.A.C. 12:17-2.1, and the tribunal’s findings were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The Board’s final decision affirming the findings of the tribunal is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record and comports with the applicable law.”