Opinion
02-08-2024
In the Matter of the Claim of Patricia POPE, Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.
Patricia Pope, South Richmond Hill, appellant pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Dennis A. Rambaud of counsel), for respondent.
Patricia Pope, South Richmond Hill, appellant pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Dennis A. Rambaud of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Aarons, J.P., Lynch, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher and Powers, JJ.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 6, 2023, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.
Claimant, one of three personal care assistants assigned to the client, informed the client that she was quitting because the work "was getting to be too much" and filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits. The Department of Labor issued an initial determination disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge upheld the denial and, upon claimant’s administrative appeal, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed. This appeal by claimant ensued.
[1–3] We affirm. "Whether a claimant has good cause to leave his or her employment is a factual question for the Board to resolve and its decision will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Rial [Commissioner of Labor], 217 A.D.3d 1305, 1305, 192 N.Y.S.3d 320 [3d Dept. 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Pabon [Hudson Val. Oral Surgery PLLC–Commissioner of Labor], 213 A.D.3d 1114, 1115, 185 N.Y.S.3d 324 [3d Dept. 2023]; Matter of Vargas [Mason ESC LLC–Commissioner of Labor], 185 A.D.3d 1339, 1340, 128 N.Y.S.3d 673 [3d Dept. 2020]). Notably, "neither generalized dissatisfaction with one’s working conditions, salary, job duties nor workload constitutes good cause for leaving one’s employment" (Matter of Brozak [Commissioner of Labor], 213 A.D.3d 1107, 1108, 184 N.Y.S.3d 842 [3d Dept. 2023] [internal citations omitted]; see Matter of Xavier [Commissioner of Labor], 172 A.D.3d 1812, 1813, 101 N.Y.S.3d 749 [3d Dept. 2019]; Matter of Schwartz [Commissioner of Labor], 164 A.D.3d 1582, 1583, 81 N.Y.S.3d 917 [3d Dept. 2018]). Claimant, who initially worked part time, acknowledged that she agreed to take on additional hours after one of the other assistants became unavailable and, therefore, she continued to work on nearly a full-time basis for several months. Claimant further conceded that she did not express dissatisfaction with her work schedule or request a reduction in hours prior to informing the client that she was quitting (see Matter of Rial [Commissioner of Labor], 217 A.D.3d at 1305, 192 N.Y.S.3d 320; Matter of Crawford [Commissioner of Labor], 54 A.D.3d 1120, 1121, 865 N.Y.S.2d 699 [3d Dept. 2008]), "thereby both depriving the employer of an opportunity to address the situation and failing to take reasonable steps to protect her employment" (Matter of Pabon [Hudson Val. Oral Surgery PLLC-Commissioner of Labor], 213 A.D.3d at 1116, 185 N.Y.S.3d 324 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Falcone [Commissioner of Labor], 108 A.D.3d 917, 918, 968 N.Y.S.2d 417 [3d Dept. 2013]; Matter of Prince [Commissioner of Labor], 100 A.D.3d 1322, 1322, 956 N.Y.S.2d 203 [3d Dept. 2012]). Under these circumstances, the Board’s determination finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence.
Aarons, J.P., Lynch, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher and Powers, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.