Opinion
527788
05-23-2019
In the Matter of the Claim of Edmilson P. XAVIER, Appellant. v. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.
Cindy R. Katz, Queens Legal Services, Jamaica, for appellant. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), for respondent.
Cindy R. Katz, Queens Legal Services, Jamaica, for appellant.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 22, 2018, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.
After claimant, a salesperson, developed a calcaneal spur that made it difficult for him to stand, the employer attempted to accommodate his condition – first by providing claimant with a stool and then by reassigning him to different departments at the same rate of pay. Claimant – dissatisfied with his new assignments and believing that he was being discriminated against – left his job and filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately disqualified claimant from receiving benefits upon the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Claimant appeals.
We affirm. "Whether a claimant has voluntarily left his or her employment without good cause is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence" ( Matter of Schwartz [Commissioner of Labor] , 164 A.D.3d 1582, 1583, 81 N.Y.S.3d 917 [2018] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Tanasa [Commissioner of Labor] , 164 A.D.3d 998, 998–999, 82 N.Y.S.3d 251 [2018] ; Matter of Baxter [Commissioner of Labor] , 162 A.D.3d 1451, 1452, 79 N.Y.S.3d 393 [2018] ). In this regard, neither dissatisfaction with one's working conditions (see Matter of Schwartz [Commissioner of Labor] , 164 A.D.3d at 1583, 81 N.Y.S.3d 917 ), work schedule/hours (see Matter of Walters [Commissioner of Labor] , 152 A.D.3d 856, 857, 54 N.Y.S.3d 892 [2017] ; Matter of della Croce [Commissioner of Labor] , 117 A.D.3d 1249, 1249, 984 N.Y.S.2d 888 [2014] ), job duties (see Matter of Carcaterra [Association for Computing Mach., Inc.-Commissioner of Labor] , 90 A.D.3d 1389, 1390, 935 N.Y.S.2d 365 [2011] ) or salary (see Matter of Poulin [Commissioner of Labor] , 131 A.D.3d 1319, 1319, 16 N.Y.S.3d 344 [2015] ), nor an inability to get along with one's supervisors or coworkers (see Matter of Gilyard [Commissioner of Labor] , 170 A.D.3d 1419, 1420, 96 N.Y.S.3d 696 [2019] ; Matter of Sheldon [Commissioner of Labor] , 153 A.D.3d 1480, 1480–1481 [2017] ), constitutes good cause for leaving one's employment.
Claimant's assertion that he was harassed by his supervisor and was subject to discrimination based upon his disability and/or his race presented factual and credibility issues for the Board to resolve (see e.g. Matter of Cohen [New York City Dept. of Citywide Admin. Servs.-Commissioner of Labor] , 152 A.D.3d 1091, 1093, 60 N.Y.S.3d 542 [2017] ). To the extent that claimant contends that he improperly was denied training for the new position to which he ultimately was assigned, the record reflects that claimant failed to afford the employer a reasonable opportunity to address this issue and, in any event, "dissatisfaction with ... the employer's training procedures ... does not constitute good cause for leaving employment" ( Matter of Prince [Commissioner of Labor] , 100 A.D.3d 1322, 1322, 956 N.Y.S.2d 203 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). Claimant concedes that his physician did not advise him to quit (see e.g. Matter of Roth [Commissioner of Labor] , 108 A.D.3d 906, 907, 968 N.Y.S.2d 739 [2013] ), and the record as a whole reflects nothing more than claimant's general dissatisfaction with his working conditions. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that claimant lacked good cause to leave his employment. Claimant's remaining arguments, to the extent not addressed, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.