Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits after she left her job claiming she had left due to "lack of work'.
The
Department of Labor issued an initial determination disqualifying Claimant from
benefits, finding, among other things, that she had been discharged for
misconduct. Ultimately an Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] found that Claimant's
testimony regarding her supervisor's behavior did not rise to the level of good
cause to justify quitting her job and, thus, determined that claimant had
voluntarily separated from her employment without good cause, disqualifying her
from receiving benefits. Finding that Claimant had willfully misrepresented the
circumstances under which she left her employment as lack of work when she had
voluntarily quit without good cause, the ALJ imposed a reduced forfeiture
penalty of four effective days.
The
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the ALJ's findings that Claimant
had voluntarily separated from her employment without good cause and had made
willful misrepresentations in filing for unemployment insurance benefits.
Claimant appealed the Board's decision.
The
Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination. The court explained,
"Whether a claimant has good cause to leave employment is a factual issue
for the Board to resolve and its determination will be upheld if supported by
substantial evidence" and "Issues of witness credibility, the evaluation
of evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom are within the exclusive
province of the Board".
While Claimant testified that her supervisor had engaged in rude, disrespectful and unprofessional behaviors toward her, had yelled at her and caused unspecified "problems," creating conflict and making her uncomfortable, the ALJ, and the Board, found that, while the supervisor may have acted in a "disagreeable manner" when interacting with claimant, the supervisor never "stepped outside the bounds of propriety."
Further, the
Appellate Division's decision reports that "Despite specific questioning, the
ALJ and the Board noted, Claimant "offered only vague and generic
characterizations of her supervisor's behavior and failed to recount a single
incident supporting her claim that her work conditions became unbearable and
that she was forced to resign." The court also observed that "Inability to
get along with a supervisor does not constitute good cause for leaving
employment."
Finding
that substantial evidence supported the Board's factual determination that Claimant
made willful misrepresentations when she filed for benefits citing lack of work
when, in fact, she left under disqualifying circumstances, including claimant's
own testimony acknowledging that she left her employment due to her
supervisor's behavior, the Appellate Division said it discerned no basis upon
which to disturb the Board's determination.
Click
HERE to access the Appellate Division's
decision posted on the Internet.