Title: Lynch v. Dept. of Employment & Training

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Lynch v. Dept. of Employment & Training (2005-003); 179 Vt. 542; 890 A.2d 93

2005 VT 114

[Filed 06-Oct-2005]

                                ENTRY ORDER

                                2005 VT 114
	
                     SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-003

                             APRIL TERM, 2005

  Bonnie Lynch	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.                                }
                                       }
  	                               }	Employment Security Board
  Department of Employment & Training  }
  (State of Vermont/Office of          }
  the Defender General)	               }	DOCKET NO. 09-04-023-03
                                       }

            In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       ¶  1.  Claimant Bonnie Lynch appeals from an Employment Security Board
  (ESB) determination that she was ineligible for unemployment compensation
  after leaving her job without good cause attributable to her employer.  We
  affirm.

       ¶  2.  Claimant worked as a secretary for the Bennington County Public
  Defender's Office for three and one-half years before resigning in August
  2004.  The reasons for claimant's resignation centered on what claimant
  characterizes as hostile, unprofessional, and aggressive conduct by her
  immediate supervisor.  Claimant described the supervisor as inflexible,
  controlling, and abusive.  The supervisor's treatment of claimant and
  others involved in the court system became an issue of great concern to
  claimant.  The testimony before the claims adjudicator established that the
  supervisor had acted inappropriately during a meeting with the presiding
  judge of the Bennington District Court and was later required to apologize
  for her conduct.  Other instances of the supervisor's less-than-courteous
  conduct were described in the record.

       ¶  3.  Claimant complained to the public defender about her supervisor
  on two occasions.  The public defender told claimant that she and her
  supervisor should try to resolve their differences, which claimant
  attempted to do.  The supervisor's behavior improved for a while, but the
  improvement did not last.  Claimant complained again in late July 2004. 
  This time, she told the public defender that she intended to resign because
  she found the situation intolerable.  The public defender offered three
  alternative solutions to address the issue: (1) allow the public defender
  to address claimant's concerns with the supervisor at the supervisor's
  regular performance review, which was scheduled two weeks from that date;
  (2) ask the Defender General's Office to intervene; and/or (3) ask the
  state employees' union for assistance in resolving the problem using the
  process established by the union contract.  Believing that the work
  environment would deteriorate rather than improve if she pursued one or
  more of those options, claimant decided to resign and to file for
  unemployment compensation.  The denial of unemployment compensation
  benefits gave rise to this appeal.
 
       ¶  4.  On appeal, claimant challenges only the ESB's conclusion and
  not the facts the ESB found.  Therefore, our review of the ESB's decision
  is narrow and requires us to determine "whether the findings support the
  [ESB]'s conclusions, and the conclusions its decision."  Turco v. Dep't of
  Employment §, 141 Vt. 135, 136,