Summary
holding that an employee "did not have good cause to leave her employment simply because she was in an undesirable situation. Good cause exists when [an employee's] ability to earn a living is jeopardized...."
Summary of this case from Leonard v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd.Opinion
CA. No: 00A-02-003 (RSG)
Submitted: May 26, 2000.
Decided: August 31, 2000.
Upon Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board: AFFIRMED.
ORDER
Having reviewed the parties' submissions in this appeal of a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board") denying appellant Sandra K. Ament ("Claimant") benefits, the Court concludes as follows:
1. Claimant was employed as a travel agent trainee by Rosenbluth International ("Appellee") from May 17, 1999 until August 4, 1999. Claimant testified she attended training classes for nine weeks. She claimed that after six weeks of training, the computer system was changed. After the training class ended, Claimant was assigned a trainer to sit with her to monitor the telephone calls Claimant received and help her handle those calls. Claimant stated that the trainer contradicted everything that she learned in class. After three days with the trainer, Claimant then answered the calls on her own and if a problem or question arose, she was instructed to put the client on hold and contact the trainer. Claimant testified that up until the day that she quit her job, she could not complete one reservation by herself
2. Claimant testified that she could not continue to work for Appellee due to the stress she was experiencing, although she was never advised by her physician to quit the job due to health or any other reason. On August 4, 1999, Claimant told her supervisor she was leaving, but did not make arrangements to meet with either her supervisor or general manager in an effort to resolve the situation prior to her leaving. She testified she never tried to contact human resources prior to her leaving. However, Claimant did have a conversation with the trainer of the class regarding office practices.
3. On October 17, 1999, Claimant filed a claim with the Department of Labor to receive unemployment benefits. The Claims Deputy denied Claimant benefits finding that she voluntarily quit without good cause and was therefore disqualified from benefits. Claimant appealed and on December 3, 1999, a hearing was held before the Appeals Referee. The decision of the Claims Deputy was affirmed and on December 15, 1999, Claimant appealed the Referee's decision to the Board. The Board affirmed the decision of the Referee denying Claimant's unemployment benefits because based on her testimony, she did not make any attempt to resolve the problems that existed, and did not attempt to meet with her supervisor or.general manager prior to her leaving, and therefore, voluntarily quit without good cause.
4. The Court's role in reviewing a Board's decision is to determine whether the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such evidence as reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion This Court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make factual findings. It merely determines if the evidence is adequate to support the Board's factual findings. In the case at bar, the Board merely adopted the factual findings and legal conclusions of the referee. Therefore, the Court must review the referee's decision.
General Motors v. Freeman, Del. Supr., 164 A.2d 686, 688 (1960).
Oceanport Ind. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Del. Supr., 636 A.2d 892, 899 (1994).
Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., Del.Supr, 213 Aid 64, 66 (1965).
Sweeny v. Wright, Del.Super., CA. No. 93A-10-004, Graves, J. (Mar. 25, 1994).
5. A claimant who leaves work voluntarily is eligible for unemployment benefits only upon showing of "good cause attributable to such work . . ." When a person leaves her job voluntarily, she bears the burden of proving good cause by a preponderance of the evidence. "Good cause should be determined by a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances. An employee does not have good cause to quit merely because there is an undesirable or unsafe situation connected with the employment. This Court has previously found that good cause exists (1) when an employer fails to pay wages; (2) when a decrease in claimant's wages renders claimant unable to earn a living; and (3) when claimant discussed decrease in wages with employer prior to quitting.
White v. Security Link, Del.Super., 658 A.2d 619 (1994).
Id. at 622.
Id.
Sandefur v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., Del.Super, CA. No. 92A-0l-002, Goldstein, J. (Aug. 27, 1993).
Brainard v. Unemployment Compensation Com'n, Del. Super., 76 A.2d 126 (1950).
Harris v. Academy Heating and Air, Del.Super., C.A. No. 93A-10-001, Graves, J. (June 6, 1994.).
6. Here, Claimant quit her job due to stress that she was experiencing as a new employee. Claimant did not obtain a medical opinion requiring her to leave work due to the stress, and even if Claimant did obtain such an opinion, she would still be disqualified from receiving benefits as she voluntarily left work without good cause. Claimant did not have good cause to leave her employment simply because she was in an undesirable situation. Good cause exists when Claimant's ability to earn a living is jeopardized and that was not the case here. This Court finds substantial evidence to support the Board's decision that Claimant was not entitled to unemployment benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Board's decision denying Claimant unemployment benefits is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________ The Honorable Richard S. Gebelein
Orig: Prothonotary Cc: Sandra K. Ament Rosenbluth International UIAB