COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

MARGARET S. SUITS 

v. Record No. 0227-95-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 

COLONIAL INVESTORS, LP, 

AND WAFFLE AND EGG 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RUSSELL COUNTY 

Donald A. McGlothlin, Jr., Judge 

 (Martin Wegbreit, Client Centered Legal Services of 

Southwest Virginia, Inc., on briefs), for appellant. 

 (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; James W. 

Osborne, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for 

appellee Virginia Employment Commission. 

 No brief for appellees Colonial Investors, LP and 

Waffle and Egg. 

 The Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) denied Margaret S. 

Suits' request for unemployment benefits. On appeal from the 

judgment of the circuit court affirming the denial, Suits raises 

the following three issues: (1) whether Suits had good cause to 

leave her employment; (2) whether Suits took reasonable steps to 

retain her employment; and (3) whether the employer's placement 

of Suits at the front grill amounted to a constructive discharge. 

 Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude 

that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily 

affirm the judgment of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

 "[W]hen determining whether good cause existed for a 

claimant to voluntarily leave employment, the [VEC] and the 

reviewing courts must first apply an objective standard to the 

reasonableness of the employment dispute and then to the 

reasonableness of the employee's efforts to resolve that dispute 

before leaving the employment." Umbarger v. Virginia Employment 

Comm'n, 12 Va. App. 431, 435, 404 S.E.2d 380, 383 (1991). 

However, the Courts are governed by the statutory directive that 

"the findings of the [VEC] as to the facts, if supported by 

evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and 

the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions of 

law." Code § 60.2-625(A). See Shifflett v. Virginia Employment 

Comm'n, 14 Va. App. 96, 97, 414 S.E.2d 865, 865 (1992). "The 

VEC's findings may be rejected only if, in considering the record 

as a whole, a reasonable mind would necessarily come to a 

different conclusion." Craft v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 8 

Va. App. 607, 609, 383 S.E.2d 271, 273 (1989). 

 I.

 The record supports the VEC's determination that Suits did 

not qualify for unemployment benefits because she did not have 

good cause to leave her employment. Code § 60.2-618(1). Suits 

was a new employee of a new business and had worked less than 

four and one-half days. She voluntarily left her employment 

"because she felt uncomfortable and stressful" working at the 

front grill. While Suits suffers from high blood pressure, which 
 3 

is aggravated by stress, "[s]he was not advised by her physician 

to quit her job due to her health." 

 II.

 Moreover, the record supports the VEC's finding that Suits 

"did not pursue all reasonable alternatives to resolve the 

dispute before leaving her employment." Suits testified that she 

told both owners that she could not work at the front grill, but 

she admitted that she never talked to the owners to resolve what 

appeared to be conflicting instructions. She quit in the middle 

of her shift, without telling the night manager that she had 

problems working at the front grill, and walked out without 

informing the night manager. 

 III.

 Suits also alleges that her employer's decision to assign 

her to the front grill amounted to a constructive discharge. The 

evidence does not support this allegation. The VEC specifically 

rejected Suits' contention that the work to which Suits was 

assigned had become unsuitable. Therefore, the evidence does not 

demonstrate that her work assignment amounted to a constructive 

discharge. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.