Opinion
Civil Action AP-2023-06
11-08-2023
LIONEL NIMA NGAPEY, Petitioner, v. MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, Respondent.
DECISION
MARRYGAY KENNEDY, JUSTICE MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
Pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 80C, Petitioner Lionel Nima Ngapey seeks review of the decision of Respondent Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission ("the Commission"), dated March 21, 2023 ("the Decision"), affirming and adopting the decision of the Administrative Hearings Officer dated January 19, 2023 ("AHO Decision"), that Petitioner was disqualified from collecting unemployment benefits. Tor the following reasons, the Court denies Petitioner's appeal.
I. Background
Petitioner began working at Serenity Residential Care ("Serenity") as a House Manager in a care home on May 30, 2022. (R. 57, 82.) Although Petitioner and Serenity agreed that he would work with two clients, he was assigned to work with three clients, which Petitioner felt was exploitative. (R. 57, 83.) In his opinion, support staff were not adequately trained or qualified, which increased his own workload. (R. 83, 87-88.) Petitioner expressed his concern about being assigned three clients to a human resources representative and a program manager, who told him that they decided to assign three clients based on the clients' particular needs. (R. 57, 87.)
Petitioner requested a reduction in hours three weeks before his separation, to which Serenity agreed. (R. 57, 90.) Nevertheless, he decided to leave his position at Serenity because he felt that he was being exploited and because the work was impacting his health. (R. 57, 83.) He gave Serenity two weeks' notice before leaving. (R. 57, 88.) Petitioner's final day of work was November 10, 2022. (R. 57, 83.)
II. Rule 80C Standard
The Maine Administrative Procedure Act confers jurisdiction on the Superior Court to review final agency actions. See 5 M.R.S. §§ 11001-11008 (2023). Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 80C provides the procedure for appealing final agency action to the Superior Court.
Judicial review of administrative agency decisions is "deferential and limited." Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2010 ME 18, ¶ 12, 989 A.2d 1128. The court is not permitted to overturn an agency's decision "unless it: violates the Constitution or statutes; exceeds the agency's authority; is procedurally unlawful; is arbitrary or capricious; constitutes an abuse of discretion; is affected by bias or error of law; or is unsupported by the evidence in the record." Kroger v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 2005 ME 50, ¶ 7, 870 A.2d 566; see 5 M.R.S. § 11007(4).
In conducting its review of an agency decision, the court may not "substitute [its] judgment for that of the agency and will 'affirm findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record.'" AngleZ Behavioral Health Servs. v. Dep't of Health and Hum. Servs., 2020 ME 26, ¶ 12, 226 A.3d 762 (quoting Int'l Paper Co. v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 1999 ME 135, ¶ 29, 737 A.2d 1047). The court "will vacate an agency's factual findings 'only if there is no competent evidence in the record to support' the findings." AngleZ Behavioral Health Servs., 2020 ME 26, ¶ 12, 226 A.3d 762 (quoting Friends of Lincoln Lakes, 2010 ME 18, ¶ 14, 989 A.2d 1128). The party seeking to vacate an agency decision bears the burden of persuasion on appeal. Anderson v. Me. Pub. Emp. Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 134, ¶ 3, 985 A.2d 501.
III. Discussion
The Commission affirmed the AHO Decision, which concluded that Petitioner was disqualified from receiving benefits because he had voluntarily left his position at Serenity without good cause. 26 M.R.S. § 1193(1)(A) provides that an individual is disqualified for unemployment benefits:
For the week in which the claimant left regular employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to that employment. The disqualification continues until the claimant has earned 4 times the claimant's weekly benefit amount in employment by an employer.
"Good cause" has no statutory definition. The Law Court has held: "Good cause exists when the pressure of real, substantial and reasonable circumstances compels the employee to leave. The employee must be forced to quit because of outward pressures." Sprague Elec. Co. v. Me. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 544 A.2d 728, 731 (Me. 1988) (quoting Henry v. Me. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 518 A.2d 1046, 1049 (Me. 1986)). "Changed circumstances in an employment situation that compel an employee to leave out of concern for his health may be considered good cause for resigning from employment." Merrow v. Me. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 495 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Me. 1985). "In order, however, for changed circumstances of employment causing a deterioration in health to constitute good cause, the employer must be given an opportunity to change the offensive conditions. Hence, the employee must reasonably make known his dissatisfaction to the employer." Id.
Petitioner argues that the Commission erred in failing to consider that his employment aggravated his disability and health issues, which could constitute good cause for resigning. To the contrary, the Administrative Hearings Officer expressly considered this issue and found that, "[t]he employer addressed both concerns the claimant brought to their attention. Without further complaints from the claimant, the employer had no way of knowing the claimant had additional problems or that the claimant's health was being affected by his job duties." (R. 58.) This finding is supported by substantial evidence.
The Administrative Hearings Officer also found, and the Commission affirmed, that Petitioner had failed to show that it was unreasonable for Serenity to assign him to a home with three clients or that he had attempted to have his concerns regarding staffing addressed. This finding is supported by substantial evidence. The Court finds no error in the conclusions of the Commission and the Administrative Hearings Officer that Petitioner voluntarily left his position at Serenity without good cause attributable to the employment. See Merrow v. Me. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 495 A.2d 1197, 1201-02 (Me. 1985).
Nor did the Commission or the Administrative Hearings Officer err in concluding that the statutory exception to disqualification for a leaving caused by illness or disability was inapplicable. 26 M.R.S. § 1193(1)(A)(1) provides an exception to disqualification when:
(1) The leaving was caused by the illness or disability of the claimant or an immediate family member and the claimant took all reasonable precautions to protect the claimant's employment status by promptly notifying the employer of the need for time off, a change or reduction in hours or a shift change and being advised by the employer that the time off or change or reduction in hours or shift change cannot or will not be accommodated;
Once again, the Commission's adopted finding that Petitioner resigned without "promptly notifying" Serenity that the reduction in hours was inadequate or that he needed additional accommodations is supported by substantial evidence. The Commission did not err in adopting the Administrative Hearings Officer's conclusion that Petitioner failed to show that he "took all reasonable precautions to protect" his employment when his health declined.
Petitioner has failed to establish that the Decision was not supported by substantial evidence or that the Commission erred as a matter of law in concluding that Petitioner voluntarily left his position at Serenity without good cause attributable to the employment and that no statutory exception to disqualification applied.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating grounds to overturn the Commission's Decision. The Decision is affirmed.
The entry is:
Petitioner Lionel Nima Ngapey's petition for review pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 80C is DENIED. The March 21, 2023, decision (Docket No. 147835) of the Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission is AFFIRMED.
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Decision into the docket by reference pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).