Oberlander v. Maine Dep't of Labor, Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: February 26, 2002
• Docket: ANDap-01-001
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT

Androscoggin, SS. IVED & FILED Civil Action RECE Docket N o. AP-01-001

oe-

TED. Polls Daber FEB 26 2002 sept yO) MATTHEW OBERLANDER, ANDROSCOGGIN SUPERIOR COURT Petitioner V. | DECISION AND ORDER ON APPEAL MAINE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE e L. GARBRECHT DONALD be. WATE s

COMMISSION, LAW LIBRA

Respondent MAR 13 2002

I. BACKGROUND

This is an appeal from a decision of the Commission that the petitioner voluntarily left his employment without good cause, and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.

In June 2000, Appellant Oberlander accepted a position as a special education teacher at The Spurwink SchooL; a school for behaviorally disordered high school students. Oberlander had never had a full-time job in this sort of position, although he had worked in the past as a “per diem” employee in a similar capacity with another employer.

It is not disputed that this is a stressful position and that some of the students made threats or were verbally abusive. The Commission contends that these are not uncommon behaviors among this population; a fact that Oberlander was

allegedly aware of prior to taking the position. Oberlander received training in “therapeutic holding,” which is a method to restrain a student in a crisis, but claims that he was not given any further instruction on ways to prevent or cope with such occurrences. The position caused Oberlander considerable stress, which he believed to be having an impact upon his physical and mental health.

Oberlander requested an alternative position working with autistic or developmentally disabled students, but no such position was available at the time. He was offered an overnight position in the residential facility, but declined the position. He resigned on October 29, 2000.

II. DISCUSSION This court’s review of the Commission’s decision is limited to determining whether the Commission correctly applied the law and whether its fact findings are supported by any competent evidence. The court “will not disturb a decision of the Commission unless the record before the Commission compels a contrary result.” McPherson v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 714 A.2d 818 (Me. 1998).

In Henry v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm’n, the Law Court stated that good cause for voluntarily resigning employment “must be measured against an objective standard of reasonableness under all the circumstances.” 518 A.2d 1046, 1049 (Me. 1986) (quoting Spear v. Maine Unemp. Ins. Comm'n, 505 A.2d 82, 84 (Me. 1986)). The Henry Court went on to state that, “good cause exists when the pressure

of real, substantial and reasonable circumstances compels the employee to leave. The employee must be forced to quit because of outward pressures.” Id. (citing Toothtaker v. Maine Employment Sec. Comm'n, 217 A.2d 203, 207 (Me. 1966)).

Even though the record may support a finding that the petitioner worked in a hostile environment, that the threats and abusive language to which he was exposed created a very real, substantial, and reasonable basis for him to leave the school, Maine law requires a change in working conditions as a prerequisite to allowing an employee to leave work for good cause on the grounds that his physical or mental health is being impacted. See, e.g. Therrien v. Maine Employment Security Comm’n, 370 A.2d 1385 (Me. 1977) (change in industrial methods would provide good cause); Merrow v. Maine Unemp. Ins. Comm’n, 495 A.2d 1197 (Me. 1985) (additional duties for the employee); Paige v. Maine Empl. Sec. Comm'n, 391 A.2d 321, 325 (Me. 1978) (employee transferred to a new facility).

In addition, the court finds that the record does not show a sufficient reason for his resignation vis-a-vis accepting the alternative working arrangement. The issue of money that he now raises on appeal, was not raised before the Commission. The only reasons that Oberlander gave at the hearing for not accepting the other position was that there were “no guarantees of relief,” and “I was ready to leave.” (T. hearing, 12/29/00, p. 13).

III. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Commission’s decision was based primarily on Therrien and the fact that

there had been no change in Oberlander’s employment. Oberlander’s refusal to accept an alternative position carried great weight. The Commission’s conclusions are supported by the law and by the record.

The entry will be:

Decision of the Commission is affirmed.

So Ordered.

DATED: febus Lo ZL

Thomas E- Delahanty I Justice, Superior Court Date Filed _February 6, 2001

of

ANDROSCOGGIN Docket No. AP-O1-0O1

County.

Action _APPEAL OF

MATTHEW OBERLANDER 24 Leeds St., Apt 7 Lewiston, ME 04240

STATE OF MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION Yarmouth, Maine

VS.

Plaintiff’s Attorney

Pro Se

Defendant’s Attorney

Pamela W. Waite, AAG (2-22-01) Elizabeth J. Wyman, AAG DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 6 State House Station Augusta, ME. 04333-0006 Date of Entry 2000 Feb. 20: Received 2-6-01. Summary Sheet, filed. Notice of Appeal with attachments, filed. Feb. 22: {Received 2-22-01. Correspondence from Pamela W. Waite, AAG and Elizabeth J. Wyman, AAG RE: Entering their appearances on behalf of Maine Unemployment Insurance ‘Commission, filed. March 12: Received 3~12-01. Certification of Record, filed. wo" On 3-12-01. Notice and Briefing Schedule Rule 80C Appeal of Final Agency Actions mail Matthew Oberlander, Pamela W. Waite, AAG and Elizabeth J. Wyman, AAG on 3-12-01. (Copy in file). (Appellant's Brief due on or before April 23, 2001) April 17: |Received 4-17-01. Appellant's Brief, filed. (Appellee's Brief due on or before May 17, 2001). June 20: Received 6-18-01. Correspondence from Pamela W. Waite RE: requesting extension of time to file brief as never received copy of Appellant's Brief, filed. uo" On 6-20-01. As to Defendant's request to extend time to file brief: (Delahanty, II, J. State to respond by July 23, 2001. Copies mailed Pamela W. Waite, AAG and Matthew Oberlander on 6-20-01. June 28: Received 6-28-01.

Copy of Defendant's request to extend time to file bried mailed Matthew Oberlander at last known address was returned from U.S. Post Office, marke "Return to Sender, Moved Left no Address, Unable to Forward," filed.

MATTHEW OBERLANDER VS. MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION

Date of

Entry Docket No. AP-01-01

2001 July 24: Received 7-19-01. Brief of Respondent Maine Unemployment. Insurance Commission, filed. (Appellant's Reply Brief due on or before August 20, 2001)

Sept. 6: Received 9-6-01. Copy of Civil Motion List mailed Matthew Oberlander at last known address was returned from U.S. Post Office, marked "Return to Sender,

Moved Left no Address, Unable to Forwar," filed.

Sept. 24: On 9-18-01. Oral Argument held this day. No:hearing held as Plaintiff did not appear. Court to make ruling on the pleadings. Delahanty, II, J., Presiding, Electronic Recording, Tape #226, Index No. 1800 - . Pamela W. Waite, AAG for the defendants. 2002 Feb. 26: Received 2-26-02. Decision and Order on Appeal. (Delahanty, II, J.) This is an appeal from a decision of the commission that the petitioner voluntarily left his employment without good cause, and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. The entry will be: Decision of the Commission is affirmed. So Ordered. Copies mailed Matthew Oberlander,: Pamela W. Waite, AAG and Elizabeth J.. Wyman, AAG on 2~26-02.