STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-12~9. I MG~ -lt/IJD- ((~:;J~J(}!j ANTHONY R. GUNNELLS, SR., Petitioner ORDER ON v. SOC PETITION
RECEIVED & FILED MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION JUN 2 4 2J:3 Respondent ANDROSCOGGIN SUPER In~ t:n11o-r
Before the Court is Claimant Anthony Gunnell's SOC appeal from
Decision No. 12-C-023S2 of the Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission,
which concluded Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits because he voluntarily left his job without good cause attributable to the
employment.
BACKGROUND
Claimant worked as an automotive technician for Bodwell Chrysler
Dodge from 19S7 until his last day of work on June 11, 2010. He worked 42
hours a week and was paid $19.50 an hour.
On June 11, 2010, the Claimant saw a repair order to do work on a 1970s
motorhome. Claimant was angry that he had to do the repair because the
motorhome was too large for the hydraulic lifts in the garage and it had to be
worked on out in the parking lot using regular jacks. The Claimant had knee and
back problems and decided he deserved a raise if he was going to be required to
crawl around under the motor home. He believed the assignment was "above
and beyond" what he usually worked on.
1 Claimant met with the service manager Mike Jamison and told him he
wanted more money for the work. Mr. Jamison told Claimant that he could not
"pick and choose" his work assignments and asked if Claimant would complete
the work. Claimant said he would do it for more money and Mr. Jamison said
that he was not authorized to approve any raises at that time. Mr. Jamison told
Claimant he would have to go home if he refused to do the work. Mr. Jamison
urged Claimant to think about it over lunch, but he declined to do so. Claimant
turned in his keys and left.
Claimant never said, "I quit" and the employer never said, "You're fired."
The Commission found that Mr. Jamison told Claimant he would have to go
home if he refused to do the work, Claimant declined to rethink the decision, and
the Claimant left.
The Claimant applied for unemployment benefits, which were denied in a
deputy decision concluding that he was disqualified under 26 M.R.S.A. § 1193(1)
because he quit voluntarily without good cause. Claimant appealed to the
Division of Administrative hearings, which held a telephonic hearing on
September 8, 2010. On September 10, the Hearing Officer affirmed the deputy
decision but reasoned that the Claimant was disqualified under 26 M.R.S.A. §
1193(2) because he had been discharged for misconduct. The Claimant was out
of state attending a funeral and did not appeal the decision until he returned.
The Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission issued a decision finding that
the Claimant's appeal was untimely and then denied his request for
reconsideration. Claimant then appealed to this Court, which entered an order
remanding the case to the Commission for further hearing on the issue of
timeliness.
2 On May 23, 2012, the Commission held a hearing. The Commission
informed Claimant that it had already deemed the appeal timely and proceeded
to take evidence on the merits of the appeal. On June 25, 2012, the Commission
issued a decision concluding that Claimant was disqualified from receiving
benefits because he had voluntarily quit his job without good cause attributable
to the employment. The Commission found, alternatively, that Claimant was
terminated for misconduct. That decision is on appeal here pursuant to Maine
Rule of Civil Procedure SOC.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In its appellate capacity, the Superior Court reviews agency decisions for
"abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings not supported by the evidence."
Rangeley Crossroads Coal. v. Land Use Reg. Comm'n, 2008 ME 115,
223. The burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove that "no competent
evidence supports the [agency's] decision and that the record compels a contrary
conclusion." Bischoff v. Maine State Ret. Sys., 661 A.2d 167, 170 (Me. 1995).
"Inconsistent evidence will not render an agency decision unsupported." Id.
"Judges may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency merely because
the evidence could give rise to more than one result." Gulick v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot.,
452 A.2d 1202, 1209 (Me. 1982) (citation omitted). Rather, the court will defer to
administrative conclusions when based on evidence that "a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id.
In doing so, the court must give great deference to an agency's
construction of a statute it is charged with administering. Rangeley Crossroads
Coal., 2008 ME 115,
3 DISCUSSION
Under Maine's unemployment compensation statute, an individual is
disqualified from receiving benefits if he "left regular employment voluntarily
without good cause attributable to that employment." 1 26 M.R.S.A. § 1193(1).
An employee leaves work "voluntarily" when he freely makes an
affirmative choice to leave his employment. Brousseau v. Me. Emp't Sec. Comm'n,
470 A.2d 327, 330 (Me. 1984). An employer-initiated separation is involuntary,
while an employee-initiated separation is voluntary. Toothaker v. Me. Emp't Sec.
Comm 'n, 217 A.2d 203, 206 (Me. 1966) ("[A] separation by act of the employer, for
example, by discharge or layoff is involuntary, and by will of the employee is
voluntary.").
An employee who leaves work voluntarily may still be qualified for
benefits if he or she had "good cause" for doing so. "Good cause exists when the
pressure of real, substantial and reasonable circumstances compels the employee
to leave." Sprague Elec. Co. v. Me. Unemp't Ins. Comm'n, 544 A.2d 728, 731 (Me.
1988). The employee must have been forced to leave due to "outward
pressures." Id. The court uses an objective test to determine whether a claimant
has established good cause. Spear v. Me. Unemp't Ins. Comm'n, 505 A.2d 82, 84
(Me. 1986). Thus, subjective inward pressures do not amount to "good cause"
attributable to the employment. Id.
The Commission decided that Claimant had left his job voluntarily,
although the Hearing Officer found that he was discharged for misconduct.
1 The disqualification begins the week in which the claimant leaves, and "continues until the claimant has earned 4 times the claimant's weekly benefit amount in employment by an employer." !d.
4 Even though Mr. Jamison apparently told Claimant he would have to "go home"
if he did not work on the motorhome, it was ultimately Claimant's decision to
refuse. Being required to "go home" and h~ve his employment terminated was
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-12~9. I MG~ -lt/IJD- ((~:;J~J(}!j ANTHONY R. GUNNELLS, SR., Petitioner ORDER ON v. SOC PETITION
RECEIVED & FILED MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION JUN 2 4 2J:3 Respondent ANDROSCOGGIN SUPER In~ t:n11o-r
Before the Court is Claimant Anthony Gunnell's SOC appeal from
Decision No. 12-C-023S2 of the Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission,
which concluded Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits because he voluntarily left his job without good cause attributable to the
employment.
BACKGROUND
Claimant worked as an automotive technician for Bodwell Chrysler
Dodge from 19S7 until his last day of work on June 11, 2010. He worked 42
hours a week and was paid $19.50 an hour.
On June 11, 2010, the Claimant saw a repair order to do work on a 1970s
motorhome. Claimant was angry that he had to do the repair because the
motorhome was too large for the hydraulic lifts in the garage and it had to be
worked on out in the parking lot using regular jacks. The Claimant had knee and
back problems and decided he deserved a raise if he was going to be required to
crawl around under the motor home. He believed the assignment was "above
and beyond" what he usually worked on.
1 Claimant met with the service manager Mike Jamison and told him he
wanted more money for the work. Mr. Jamison told Claimant that he could not
"pick and choose" his work assignments and asked if Claimant would complete
the work. Claimant said he would do it for more money and Mr. Jamison said
that he was not authorized to approve any raises at that time. Mr. Jamison told
Claimant he would have to go home if he refused to do the work. Mr. Jamison
urged Claimant to think about it over lunch, but he declined to do so. Claimant
turned in his keys and left.
Claimant never said, "I quit" and the employer never said, "You're fired."
The Commission found that Mr. Jamison told Claimant he would have to go
home if he refused to do the work, Claimant declined to rethink the decision, and
the Claimant left.
The Claimant applied for unemployment benefits, which were denied in a
deputy decision concluding that he was disqualified under 26 M.R.S.A. § 1193(1)
because he quit voluntarily without good cause. Claimant appealed to the
Division of Administrative hearings, which held a telephonic hearing on
September 8, 2010. On September 10, the Hearing Officer affirmed the deputy
decision but reasoned that the Claimant was disqualified under 26 M.R.S.A. §
1193(2) because he had been discharged for misconduct. The Claimant was out
of state attending a funeral and did not appeal the decision until he returned.
The Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission issued a decision finding that
the Claimant's appeal was untimely and then denied his request for
reconsideration. Claimant then appealed to this Court, which entered an order
remanding the case to the Commission for further hearing on the issue of
timeliness.
2 On May 23, 2012, the Commission held a hearing. The Commission
informed Claimant that it had already deemed the appeal timely and proceeded
to take evidence on the merits of the appeal. On June 25, 2012, the Commission
issued a decision concluding that Claimant was disqualified from receiving
benefits because he had voluntarily quit his job without good cause attributable
to the employment. The Commission found, alternatively, that Claimant was
terminated for misconduct. That decision is on appeal here pursuant to Maine
Rule of Civil Procedure SOC.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In its appellate capacity, the Superior Court reviews agency decisions for
"abuse of discretion, error of law, or findings not supported by the evidence."
Rangeley Crossroads Coal. v. Land Use Reg. Comm'n, 2008 ME 115,
223. The burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove that "no competent
evidence supports the [agency's] decision and that the record compels a contrary
conclusion." Bischoff v. Maine State Ret. Sys., 661 A.2d 167, 170 (Me. 1995).
"Inconsistent evidence will not render an agency decision unsupported." Id.
"Judges may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency merely because
the evidence could give rise to more than one result." Gulick v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot.,
452 A.2d 1202, 1209 (Me. 1982) (citation omitted). Rather, the court will defer to
administrative conclusions when based on evidence that "a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id.
In doing so, the court must give great deference to an agency's
construction of a statute it is charged with administering. Rangeley Crossroads
Coal., 2008 ME 115,
3 DISCUSSION
Under Maine's unemployment compensation statute, an individual is
disqualified from receiving benefits if he "left regular employment voluntarily
without good cause attributable to that employment." 1 26 M.R.S.A. § 1193(1).
An employee leaves work "voluntarily" when he freely makes an
affirmative choice to leave his employment. Brousseau v. Me. Emp't Sec. Comm'n,
470 A.2d 327, 330 (Me. 1984). An employer-initiated separation is involuntary,
while an employee-initiated separation is voluntary. Toothaker v. Me. Emp't Sec.
Comm 'n, 217 A.2d 203, 206 (Me. 1966) ("[A] separation by act of the employer, for
example, by discharge or layoff is involuntary, and by will of the employee is
voluntary.").
An employee who leaves work voluntarily may still be qualified for
benefits if he or she had "good cause" for doing so. "Good cause exists when the
pressure of real, substantial and reasonable circumstances compels the employee
to leave." Sprague Elec. Co. v. Me. Unemp't Ins. Comm'n, 544 A.2d 728, 731 (Me.
1988). The employee must have been forced to leave due to "outward
pressures." Id. The court uses an objective test to determine whether a claimant
has established good cause. Spear v. Me. Unemp't Ins. Comm'n, 505 A.2d 82, 84
(Me. 1986). Thus, subjective inward pressures do not amount to "good cause"
attributable to the employment. Id.
The Commission decided that Claimant had left his job voluntarily,
although the Hearing Officer found that he was discharged for misconduct.
1 The disqualification begins the week in which the claimant leaves, and "continues until the claimant has earned 4 times the claimant's weekly benefit amount in employment by an employer." !d.
4 Even though Mr. Jamison apparently told Claimant he would have to "go home"
if he did not work on the motorhome, it was ultimately Claimant's decision to
refuse. Being required to "go home" and h~ve his employment terminated was
the natural consequence of his intentional decision; refusing the assignment was
comparable to quitting because Claimant knew what the direct consequence
would be. Thus, the Commission's decision was supported by competent
evidence in the record?
The Commission further concluded that Claimant did not have "good
cause" for leaving his job. It found, "the reason that the claimant left work was
because the service manager refused to give claimant a pay increase to work on
the motor home." This finding is amply supported in the evidence, as Claimant
testified at length about how he believed he deserved more money for doing that
particular job? Claimant does not point to any evidence that such pay raise was
provided for under an employment agreement or otherwise promised. Thus, the
record supports the Commission's conclusion that Claimant failed to show good
cause under the objective standard and the Court should not substitute its
judgment for that of the Commission.
2 Furthermore, there is competent evidence in the record for the Commission's alternate conclusion that the Plaintiff was discharged for misconduct, which would also disqualify Claimant. 3 Although he also complained to Mr. Jamison that he had knee and back problems, the Commission found that Mr. Jamison's refusal to give him a raise was the overriding reason for his departure. Claimant was also upset over an offensive mock repair order and unsafe jacks for working on the motorhome, but he did not voice these concerns to Mr. Jamison. Merrow v. Me. Unemp't Ins. Comm'n, 495 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Me. 1985) (employer must be given opportunity to change offensive condition before good cause arises).
5 The entry is:
The Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
6 AP-12-09 Anthony Gunnells, Sr. vs. Unemployment Insurance ... https://docs.google.com/a/courts.maine.gov/document/d/1eq35 ...
7-20-12 Androscoggin Docket No. AP-12-09
Action: SOC Appeal
Anthony Gunnells, Sr. Unemployment Insurance 4 Zamore Street Commission Lisbon, ME 04250 vs.
Plaintiff's Attorney Elizabeth Wyman, Esq. Office of Attorney General 6 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333
Date of Entry
July 20 Received 07-20-12: SOC Appeal filed.
Jan 17 Received 01-17-13: Entry of Appearance of Elizabeth Wyman, Esq. for Maine Unemployment Commission.
Feb 19 Received 02-19-13: Administrative Record filed.
Feb 19 On 02-19-13: Notice and Briefing Schedule filed. Appellant's Brief is due on or before April 1, 2013.
Mar 22 Received 03-22-13: Appellant's Brief filed.
Apr 16 Received 04-16-13: Respondent's Brief filed.
1 of2 7/2113 3:07PM