Mastropasqua v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: June 1, 2006
• Docket: CUMap-05-49
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION Docket No. AP-05-49,

ANTHONY MASTRC)PASQUA,

Plaintiff,,

ORDER

MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION,

Before the court is plaintiff Anthony Mastropasqua's appeal from a decision of

the Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission concluding that Mastropasqua

voluntarily left his jot) without good cause attributable to employment and that he was

therefore not entitled to unemployment benefits.

Procedural Historv

Mastropasqua left h s employment with Amato's Sandwich Shops Inc. in

November 2004 and €iled an application for unemployment benefits. Originally, the

Bureau of Employment Security found that he left his employment with good cause

attributable to h s employment and awarded him benefits. R. 197. An appeal from that

decision was taken and after a hearing on January 19, 2005 (R. 75-189), an

administrative hearing officer set aside the decision below and found that

Mastropasqua had left his employment voluntarily and without good cause attributable

to h s employment. F:. 71-74. Mastropasqua then appealed. (R. 67-70). Originally the

Commission affirmed and adopted the hearing officer's decision (R. 48) but after Mastropasqua noted that he had faxed additional information that had apparently not been considered by the Commission, the Commission held a telephone hearing and

took further evidence on his request for reconsideration (R. 38, R. 6-37).

On June 30, 2.005, the Commission issued a decision upholding the hearing

officer's decision and finding that because Mastropasqua left his employment without

good cause attributable to his employment, he was not eligible for unemployment

benefits. R. 1-3.

Standard of Review

On an appeal of h s nature, the function of judicial review is to determine

whether the Commisr~ion'sfactual findings are supported by any competent evidence

and whether the Commission correctly applied the law. McPherson v. Maine

Unemvlovment Insurance Commission, 1998 ME 177 ¶ 6,714 A.2d 818, 820. If there is

substantial evidence in the record to support the Commission's findings, those findings

must be upheld unless the record before the Commission compels a contrary result.

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency merely because the

evidence could give rise to more than one result or because the court might have

weighed the evidence differently. E.n., Dowd v. Secretarv of State, 526 A.2d 583, 584

(Me. 1987).

In this case botlh the hearing officer and the Commission found that, regardless of

whether Mastropasqua's complaints about his treatment by his supervisor were valid,

he had not left his employment with good cause because, under Merrow v. Maine

Unemployment Insurance Commission, 495 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Me. 1985), the employer

was entitled to an opportunity to remedy the offensive conditions. In this case there

was a dispute whether Mastropasqua had ever brought h s complaints about h s

supervisor to the company's attention prior to November 17, 2004. See R. 172-74. The Commission was entitled to conclude that Mastropasqua had not previously raised

with company management the issues that he contends caused him not to appear for

work on that date.

Moreover, it alppears to be undisputed that when the employer sought to resolve

Mastropasqua's complaints by arranging for h m to work at a different store, he did not

appear for work at ihat store as scheduled. R. 16, 113, 146, 152. Mastropasqua then

indicated he wanted to return to work at the original store, but when a meeting was

scheduled to explore that possibility, he did not attend. R. 148-49.

Whether or not the court would make the same finding, there was sufficient

evidence to sustain the Commission's finding that Mastropasqua did not leave his

employment with good cause attributable to his employment because he did not give

the employer any opportunity to resolve the problems he allegedly was experiencing.

Merrow, 495 A.2d at '1201.'

The entry shall:be:

The June 30, 2005 decision of the Commission in the above-captioned case is

affirmed. The clerk is directed to incorporate this order in the docket by reference

pursuant to Rule 79(a).

Dated: June ,2006

Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court

1 Mastropasqua apparently has a pending employment discrimination claim, and the court expresses no view one way or the other as to the merits of that claim. Date Filed JUJ,Y 79 2005 -CI Docket No. County

Action 80C APPEAL

ANTHONY J MASTROPASQUA AMATO'S SANDWICH SHDPSlTNC

VS.

Plaintiff's Attorney 4&f~%@?bhh&!fi~~ ANTHONY J MASTROPASQUA (PRO-SE) ELIZABETH J WYMAN AAG (ME. Unemploy. Comm. PO BOX 6633 6 STATE HOUSE STATION PORTLAND MAINE 04103 AUGUSTA MAINE 04333-0006 (207)767-3632 (207)626-8800 (207)210-2337 KELLY TURNER, AAG(ME UNEMP. INS. COM) 6 STATE HOUSE STATION AUGUSTA, ME 04333-0006 626-8800 Date of Entry 2005