Opinion
No. CV 05-4017176
November 26, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is an appeal under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-249b and Practice Book § 22-9 from a decision dated August 16, 2005 of the Employment Security Board of Review that plaintiff is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits because he left work voluntarily without good cause or exploring reasonable alternatives prior to leaving his employment, rejecting plaintiff's claim that his employer breached a definite promise to promote him.
It is not necessary to review the findings of fact in that decision which rely on findings made by the administrator and appeals referee, the central finding being that it was not good cause for plaintiff to leave his employment because he felt overworked, that too many clients were assigned to him and that he was required to work with substance abuse clients two months after he was promoted to the position of lead case manager, a newly created position at his employer, Advanced Behavior Health, Inc. ("ABH").
On June 29, 2007, defendant Administrator moved to dismiss this appeal, and this court heard argument on September 17, 2007.
I.
"Review of an administrative agency decision requires this court to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency's findings of basic fact and whether the conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable . . . Neither th[e] [appellate] court[s] nor the trial court may retry the case or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the weight of the evidence or questions of fact . . . Our ultimate duty is to determine, in view of all of the evidence, whether the agency, in issuing its order, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion . . . [A]n agency's factual and discretionary determinations are to be accorded considerable weight by the courts." Practice Book § 22-9(a). JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 965 Conn. 413, 417-18, 828 A.2d 609 (2003).
In this case, the board adopted the referee's findings of fact, with one modification and plaintiff did not file a motion to correct the board's findings of fact as permitted by Practice Book § 22-4. He is, therefore, precluded from challenging those findings, and the court is precluded from "Further review of those facts found by the board." JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, supra, 422.
An individual is not entitled to unemployment compensation if he leaves suitable work voluntarily without good cause attributable to his employer. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-236(a)(2)(A). In determining whether an individual's reason for leaving suitable work is for good cause attributable to the employer, the Administrator must find that the reason relates to wages, hours or working conditions which comprise the employment that the individual voluntarily left. Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 31-236-19: see also Law Offices of Neil Johnson v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 101 Conn.App. 782, 793, 924 A.2d 859 (2007).
An individual leaves suitable work "for cause" within the meaning of the statute, when he leaves employment for reasons which would impel the ordinary reasonable person to leave and which provide the individual with no reasonable alternative but to terminate his employment . . . As a matter of law, therefore, a claimant must show that his basis for leaving employment is objectively reasonable and that no reasonable alternative to termination exists.
Acro Technology, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 25 Conn.App. 130, 135, 593 A.2d 154 (1991).
Section 31-236-22 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides the administrator with a two-part test to determine whether an individual has demonstrated good cause for leaving his employment due to working conditions. First, the administrator must find that the working conditions fit into one of eleven categories set out in § 31-236-22(a)(1)(A)-(K). Two of these categories potentially apply in the present case: whether the employer "substantially changed a working condition established in the employment agreement and such change had a significantly adverse effect upon the individual"; Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 31-236-22(a)(1)(A); and whether "the individual's employer breached a definite promise to promote the individual after the individual fulfilled the conditions for promotion." Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31-236-22(a)(1)(K). Second, the administrator must also find that "the individual expressed his dissatisfaction regarding the working condition to his employer and unsuccessfully sought a remedy through those means reasonably available to him before leaving his employment . . ." Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 31-236-22(a)(2).
II.
Plaintiff claims that ABH breached its contract to promote the plaintiff by requiring him to go through an undefined transition period from his old to his new position and to perform the duties of both his old and new jobs, in a manner that posed an ethical dilemma for the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff argues that he detrimentally relied on ABH's promise to promote him when he declined to accept an offer of a position with another employer.
The defendant argues that ABH specifically conditioned its promise to promote the plaintiff with a requirement that he complete a transition period, and the plaintiff failed to do so. Additionally, as to the plaintiff's claim that he declined a similar position in reliance on the promise to promote him and that the plaintiff faced an ethical dilemma, the defendant argues that the plaintiff's failure to file a motion to correct the board's findings precludes him from disputing the board's findings on these issues.
III.
The elements of a breach of contract action are the formation of an agreement, performance by one party, breach of the agreement by the other party and damages. Whitaker v. Taylor, 99 Conn.App. 719, 728, 916 A.2d 834 (2007). Whether there was a breach of contract is ordinarily a question of fact. Rent-A-PC, Inc. v. Rental Management, Inc., 96 Conn.App. 600, 607, 901 A.2d 720 (2006); Choi v. Argenti, 91 Conn.App. 681, 684, 881 A.2d 1053 (2005). In this case, the board reviewed the record and concluded that "we cannot find that the employer breached its contract promoting the claimant." As the board explained, "[t]he claimant was given a substantial pay raise . . . when he accepted the position . . . In the two months that he worked in the position, he was assigned seven of the more complex `4.2' cases. According to the claimant's testimony . . . [his supervisor] . . . advised him that the usual case load for a lead case manager was . . . twelve to fifteen cases . . . At the time the claimant resigned, he did not have a full case load as a lead case manager . . . Furthermore, the claimant admitted that the employer had advised him that there would be an unidentified period of time when he would transition into the lead case manager position and that he would be expected to carry some of the standard cases that he was assigned as a recovery manager . . ."
It is concluded that the board did not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion when it found that ABH did not breach its contract to promote the plaintiff. The plaintiff fails to point to anything in the board's decision that rises to this standard, and instead makes claims on evidence that is not in the record.
Defendant points out the plaintiff was required to seek a remedy with ABH prior to leaving his employment but failed to do so. Under Conn. Gem Stat. § 31-236-22(a)(2) the administrator is required to find that the individual expressed his dissatisfaction regarding the working condition to his employer and unsuccessfully sought a reasonable resolution before leaving his employment. Acro Technology, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, supra, 25 Conn.App. 135. See also Thompson v. Unemployment Administrator State of Connecticut, Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland, Docket No. CV 97 0064844 (January 12, 2000, Klaczak, J.) holding that a plaintiff must have informed his employer of his complaints and given the employer an opportunity to remedy the problem.
In this case the board concluded that the claimant did not explore reasonable alternatives prior to leaving in that he did not complain about the cases that were assigned to him, did not advise ABH that he could not handle his case load or that it was affecting his health and did not ask if he could be relieved of some of his cases or transferred to a less stressful position. This conclusion is fully supported by the referee's findings of fact. The plaintiff fails to point to any evidence in the record that he communicated his concerns about his position to ABH, asked for relief or gave his employer an opportunity to provide a resolution. The record shows that the plaintiff failed to provide ABH with his reasons for quitting either in his telephone message or his resignation letter. Thus, the board did not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion in finding that the plaintiff failed to notify his employer of his concerns and allow a possible remedy.
Defendant's motion to dismiss this appeal is granted.