-------- We now address whether petitioner had good cause to quit her job because of fault on the part of respondent. Petitioner contends that any reasonable person would have quit petitioner's job given the issues that she had with respondent and her coworkers, and that her case is analogous to Curry v. Gatson, 180 W.Va. 272, 376 S.E.2d 166 (1988). We found in Curry that the employee acted reasonably in quitting a job where she was subjected to racial discrimination.
In the case sub judice, Sparks did report the sexual harassment to her supervisor. In Curry v. Gatson, 180 W. Va. 272, 376 S.E.2d 166 (1988), the West Virginia Supreme Court determined that sexual and racial harassment constituted good cause when an employee left work voluntarily for purposes of unemployment compensation benefits. Similar to Mississippi, the West Virginia Employment Compensation statute does not define "good cause".
Portz v. Pipestone Skelgas, 397 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Minn.App. 1986). If, however, an employee is being harassed by coworkers, the employee may have good cause to quit if the employer has notice of the harassment but fails to take timely and appropriate measures to prevent it. Hanke v. Safari Hair Adventure, 512 N.W.2d 614, 618 (Minn.App. 1994) (employee who was harassed by coworkers because of his sexual orientation had reasonable cause to quit his job when his employer did not give him any reasonable expectation of assistance to solve the problem); Wetterhahn v. Kimm Co., 430 N.W.2d 4, 6 (Minn.App. 1988) (employee who was victim of ongoing swearing and yelling by coworker had good cause to quit when her employer had notice of the harassment and failed to take measures to stop it); Curry v. Gatson, 180 W. Va. 272, 376 S.E.2d 166, 169 (1988) (employee who quit her job because of sexual and racial harassment by coworkers had good cause attributable to her employer); Tru-Stone Corp. v. Gutzkow, 400 N.W.2d 836, 839 (Minn.App. 1987) (employee whose coworkers taunted and harassed him by calling him names and drawing uncomplimentary pictures of him with profanities written underneath had good cause to quit his job when his employer failed to respond to the situation); Turco v. Dep't of Employment Security, 141 Vt. 135, 446 A.2d 345, 347 (1982) (employee harassed by coworkers about his religious beliefs had good cause to quit when his employer acted with callous indifference and refused to address the problem). Unlike the circumstances in the foregoing cases, Esselman does not claim she was being taunted, teased, or harassed by coworkers.
Both employees and employers would benefit from a standard that encourages harassed employees to come forward early, well before the ephemeral line of legal liability has been crossed, in order to root out the problem before it grows into an unmanageable and costly crisis. See generally Syl. pt. 2, in part, Curry v. Gatson, 180 W. Va. 272, 376 S.E.2d 166 (1988) ("if an employee is sexually or racially harassed at the workplace and this discriminatory treatment would cause a reasonably prudent person to resign, such employee is not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits").Hanlon, 195 W. Va. at 112, 464 S.E.2d at 754.
In spite of this minor change, respondent continued in the employment of petitioner for an additional nine months after the car was restricted to only business use. We said in syllabus point 1 of Curry v. Gatson, 180 W. Va. 272, 376 S.E.2d 166, (1988) that "`[c]ustomary working conditions not involving deceit or other wrongful conduct on the part of the employer are not a sufficient reason for an employee to leave his most recent work.' Syllabus, Amherst Coal Co. v. Hix, 128 W. Va. 119, 35 S.E.2d 733 (1945)." The Board of Review was clearly wrong in concluding that a substantial change occurred in the terms of respondent's employment.
Carlson contends she was forced to quit her job because she was unable to get along with some of her coworkers and felt stressed and harassed at work. There is considerable authority that an employee has good cause to quit her job if she is being harassed by coworkers and her employer, with knowledge of the harassment, ignores it and fails to take measures to stop it. Hanke v. Safari Hair Adventure, 512 N.W.2d 614 (Minn.Ct.App. 1994); Wetterhahn v. Kimm Co., 430 N.W.2d 4 (Minn.Ct.App. 1988); Curry v. Gatson, 180 W. Va. 272, 376 S.E.2d 166 (1988); Tru-Stone Corp. v. Gutzkow, 400 N.W.2d 836 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987); Turco v. Dep't of Employment Security, 141 Vt. 135, 446 A.2d 345 (1982); and Richards v. Daniels, 1 Ark. App. 331, 615 S.W.2d 399 (1981). It is equally clear, however, an employee does not have good cause to quit her job merely because she has irreconcilable differences with coworkers or is frustrated or dissatisfied with her working conditions.
Syl. pt. 3, Smittle v. Gatson, 195 W. Va. 416, 465 S.E.2d 873 (1995); Philyaw v. Gatson, 195 W. Va. 474, 476, 466 S.E.2d 133, 135 (1995); syl. pt. 1, Davis v. Gatson, 195 W. Va. 143, 464 S.E.2d 785 (1995). See also W. Va.Code, 21A-7-21 (findings by the Board of Review shall have like weight to that accorded the findings of a trial chancellor or judge in equity procedure); syl. pt. 2, Wolford v. Gatson, 182 W. Va. 674, 391 S.E.2d 364 (1990); syl. pt. 3, Curry v. Gatson, 180 W. Va. 272, 376 S.E.2d 166 (1988); syl. pt. 2, Ash v. Rutledge, 176 W. Va. 727, 348 S.E.2d 442 (1986); syl. pt. 1, Butler v. Rutledge, 174 W. Va. 752, 329 S.E.2d 118 (1985); syl. pt. 1, Mizell v. Rutledge, 174 W. Va. 639, 328 S.E.2d 514 (1985); syl. pt. 2, Perfin v. Cole, 174 W. Va. 417, 327 S.E.2d 396 (1985); syl. pt. 1, Kisamore, supra. The circumstances of Adkins, supra, are identical to the circumstances now before us, and our decision in Adkins is dispositive herein.
Both employees and employers would benefit from a standard that encourages harassed employees to come forward early, well before the ephemeral line of legal liability has been crossed, in order to root out the problem before it grows into an unmanageable and costly crisis. See generally Syl. pt. 2, in part, Curry v. Gatson, 180 W. Va. 272, 376 S.E.2d 166 (1988) ("if an employee is sexually or racially harassed at the workplace and this discriminatory treatment would cause a reasonably prudent person to resign, such employee is not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits"). Accordingly, we hold that W. Va. Code, 5-11-9(7)(C), prohibits an employer or other person from retaliating against any individual for expressing opposition to a practice that he or she reasonably and in good faith believes violates the provisions of the Human Rights Act.
Id. at 96. See also Curry v. Gatson, 376 S.E.2d 166, 169 (W.Va. 1988) ("[I]f an employee is sexually or racially harassed at the workplace and this discriminatory treatment would cause a reasonably prudent person to resign, such employee is not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits upon resignation . . . ."). Because of its disposition of the case, the court of appeals did not address the question of whether substantial evidence supported the panel's decision.