IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST CROIX

PHILSBERT CODRINGTON )

Petitioner; CIVIL NO sx 2010 CV 00102

V l PETITION FOR W RlT OF REVIEW

GME DOSPlVA LLC and VIRGIN ISLANDS l

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR )

Respondents ; 2023 VI SUPER 80U

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

{:1 B) Order enteled June 22 2010 ( Order Granting Writ ) the Coult granted

Appellant Philsbert Codrington s petition f01 writ of review, titled Notice of Appeal (herein

Petition ) timely filed on March 4 2010 I The Petition sought relieffiom the February 3 2010

Decision of the Administlative law Judge ( ALJ’) affilming (on other gtounds) the initial

determination of the Adjudicator within the Division of Unemployment Insurance of Respondent

Virgin Islands Department of 1 abor ( DOL or Depaltment ) Thelein in deciding Petitionel

C0dringt0n 5 internal appeal 01 the Adjudicator s determination to deny C0drington 5 application

for unemployment benefits the AL] found that Codrington was not disqualified from leceixing

benefits due to misconduct but concluded that Codrington had toltlntarily quit his job without

good cause and was [hetefore ineligible to receive unemp10)ment insutance benefits Respondent

GME Dospiva Ll C ( 0MP ) filed an Opposition to the Petition for Writ of Review on Ma), 21

2010 denied by the Order Granting Wlit The Olden Granting W1 it did not set a briefing schedule

Petitioner filed no brief to supplement the g1 ounds for seeking rex iew set out in the Petition and

l The Orden Glanting Writ required the Department of Labor to produce a transcript of the above

mentioned case within sixty davs B) lettel of August 1.: 2010 the Department of Labor transmitted its

original file and original transcript Unemplo)ment lnsmance benefit Appeal Hearing
?hzlsbert Codrmgton v GME Dospna LLC and Dept ofLabor SX 2010 CV 00102

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Page 2 0f 7 2023 VI SUPER 801)

neither Respondent filed a brief For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that the AL] 5

Decision is supported in the record by substantial evidence and will affirm the Decision 2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

$2 On March 4 2010, Petitioner filed his Petition asking the Court to review and

vacate the ALJ 5 February 03 2010 Decision in PHIL S'BERT CODRINGTOV V OMB D09PIVA

LLC (VI App No 016 02 10) The record3 shows that GME hired Codrlngton to work full time

as a C A D operator in August 2007 On September 22 2009 Codrington informed GME 3 owner

and manager, Brent Whitney, that he would be late for work and that he wanted to speak with him

Codrington arrived at work at 9 a m but was unable to perform any work duties upon arrival

because he was too mentally distressed due to personal matters Whitney arrived at the office

around 11 am and observed that Codrington was not executing any assignments for work

Subsequently Whitney pulled a folder from Codrington’s project files, and placed it on

C0drington’s desk stating that he had work for Codrington to complete Codrington testified that

Whitney slammed the file folder on his desk scattering the papers within Whitney then left the

office through the door near Codrington s desk Codrington testified that Whitney slammed the

door as he lefi the building Offended by what he perceived as disrespect, C0drington followed

Whitney to GME 5 parking lot where Codrington and Whitney engaged in a verbal exchange

2 After this matter had lain dormant without action by any party for several years, by letter of February 19,

2021, requesting response within 30 days, the Clerk of the Court inquired of Petitioner whether he intended

to proceed with his appeal The letter, sent certified mail, return receipt requested was returned by the U S

Postal Service with the notation “3/21/21 Return to Sender, Unclaimed; Unable to Forward ” Petitioner

did not respond to the Clerk’s letter Thereafter, by Order entered January 9, 2023, the Court ordered

Petitioner to show cause in writing within 14 days why his Petition should not be dismissed for lack of

prosecution pursuant to V I R Civ P 41(b) That Order was sent certified mail, and the receipt was

returned to the Court on January 27, 2023, signed by Petitioner The Order was also personally served on

Petitioner by the Office of Virgin Islands Marshal on January 25, 2023 Petitioner has filed nothing in

response to the Court’s Order Despite that failure in light of the fact that “there is a strong public policy

in the Virgin Islands for determining civil cases on the merits, Robertson v Banco Popular De P R , 2023 v13 11 37 (v1 2023) citing the Court wi11 review the Petition on its merits rather than enter a dismissal for lack of prosecution

‘ The “record” in the instant case includes letters exchanged between Cedrington and GME owner and

manager Brent Whitney, admitted as exhibits at the hearing, the initial determination by the Department of Labor’s Adjudicator the transcript of the proceedings before the AL], and the ALJ’s February 03, 2010

Decision
[’hllsbert Codrington v GME Dospzva LLC and Dept ofLabor SX 2010 CV 00102

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Page 3 of 7 2023 V1 SUPER 80U

During the argument, Codrington uttered profane language to Whitney and at some point said, ‘if

you don’t want me here, I m out of here ’

113 According to Whitney, upon hearing this proclamation, he advised Codrington that

if he left the premises, it would be regarded as a voluntary resignation Codrington admits he heard

that statement by Whitney but testified that Whitney told him to get the hell out of here and that

his response was, you don’t have to tell me twice ” in addition to saying, if you don’t want me

here, I m out of here ’ At the conclusion of the verbal exchange, Codrington gathered his personal

items and left GME’s premises Codrington believed he was terminated notwithstanding the fact

that he conceded that Whitney never expressly said ‘ you re fired ’ during the confrontation

134 On October 2, 2009, Codrington and Whitney spoke briefly when Codrington went

to pick up his final paycheck During that encounter, nothing was mentioned regarding the

September 22, 2009 incident After that date Codrington attempted to call Whitney several times,

but his phone calls were not returned Finally on October 15, 2009, Whitney wrote a letter of

termination to Codrington

15 On October 5, 2009, Codrington filed for unemployment insurance benefits On

December 9, 2009 an Adjudicator determined that Codrington was not entitled to receive

unemployment insurance benefits because his actions as reported by GME, pursuant to V I Code

Ann tit 24, § 304(b)(3) were a deliberate disregard of the standards of behavior [his] employer

had a right to expect of [him] ” Disagreeing with the Adjudicator s decision, Codrington filed a

notice of appeal under § 306(b) on December 16, 2009

116 On January 26, 2010 AL! Jamelia John Baptiste presided over the hearing and

heard testimony from two individuals Philsbert Codrington Jr and Brent Whitney After hearing

the testimony and considering the evidence, on February 2, 2010 the ALJ issued her Decision

finding that Codrington was not terminated for misconduct under § 304(b)(3) but rather that

Codrington voluntarin quit his position without good cause under § 304(b)(2) as interpreted by

Cunnmgham v V! Unemployment Security Agency 20 VI 214 216 (D VI 1983) Codrington

filed his Petition on March 4 2010
Phllsbert Codrmgton v GME Dosplva LLC and Dept ofLabor SX 2010 CV 00102

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Page 4 017 2023 V1 SUPER 80U

117 In his Petition Petitioner contends that the ALJ s conclusions that (l) he voluntarily

quit his job and (2) that he did so Without good cause under § 304(b)(2) were unsupportable based

on the substantial evidence of the record as a whole

LEGAL STANDARD

118 V 1 Code Ann tit 24 § 306(c)(1)a110ws a party aggn'eved by a hearing examiner's

decision to ‘initiate[ ] judicial review by filing in the [Superior] Court of the Virgin Islands a

petition for review within 30 days after the hearing examiner’s deeision has been mailed to each

party's last known address or otherwise delivered to him Id § 306(c)(1) Codrington timely filed

the Petition on March 4 2010 Therefore, the Superior Court has jurisdiction over the Department

of Labor ALJ 8 February 2 2010 Decision

$9 In granting a petition for review under § 306(c)(1), the reviewing court’s

jurisdiction ‘ shall be confined to questions of law and in the absence of fraud, the findings of fact

by the hearing examiner, if supported by substantial evidence regardless of statutory or common

law rules, shall be conclusive ’ § 306(e)(3)

1110 Where the Legis1ature has not explicitly required courts to apply a more deferential

standard of review, the Superior Coutt exercises plenary review of an agency’s conclusions of law

Bryan v Fawkes 61 VI 201 226 27 (VI 2014) In the instant case because the Legislature did

not require a specific standard of review under § 306(c)(3) for the ALJ’s conclusions of law the

Court reviews those determinations de novo However § 306(c)(3) does reqmre that the Superior

Court review all factual conclusions under the substantial evidence standard

DISCUSSION

A The ALJ’s finding that Codrington quit his job is based on substantial evidence

1111 C0drington contends that the ALJ’s conclusion that he voluntari1y quit his job was

not based on substantial evidence

1112 The Court finds that the ALJ's determination that Codrington voluntarily quit his

job was based on substantial ev1dence Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conc1usion ’ Virgm Islands Coalmon 0f

Cztzzens With Disabzlztzes Inc /S't Thomas v Government ofthe Virgin Islands, 47 VI 315 320
Philsbert Codrmgton v GME Dospzva LLC and Dept ofLabor SX 2010 CV 00102

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Page 5 of 7 2023 VI SUPER 80U

21 (VI Super 2005) (quoting Black 3 Law Dictionary (8th ed 1999)) If no reasonable fact finder

could make [a particular] finding on the administrative record ’ then an administrative record IS

not based on substantial evidence Dza v Ashcroft, 353 F 3d 228, 249 (3d Cir 2003) Furthermore

simply because the Court could reach a different conclusion based on the factual record before it

does not mean that the record is unsupported by substantial evidence ConmIo v. Federal Marztzme

Commzsszon 383 U S 607, 619 (1966) Therefore, substantial evidence allows for the possibility

of drawing two inconsistent conclusions ’ I/I Coalttzon of Cztzzens wzth Dwabzlmes Inc /St

Thomas 12 Govt ofthe Wrgm Islands 47 VI 315 320 (V1 Super 2005) Accordingly so long as

an administrative decision is supported by substantial evidence it is not subject to reversal simply

because it might also support a contradictory finding Port Norm Exp Co Inc v I C C 697 F 2d

497 (3rd Cir 1982)

1113 When the Court applies the substantial evidence test, it is required to consider the

‘ whole record ” La Vallee NorthSIde CIVIC Ass n v Virgm Iclands Bd ofLand Use Appeals, 30 VI

9 16 (VI Terr 1994) (quoting Umverval Camera Corp v NLRB 340 U S 474 (1951)) In other

words, the Court must do more than simply find ajustification for the agency’s decision, it must

also determine whether the agency’s ruling was reasonable in light of all the evidence presented

Id ‘The substantiality ofthe evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts

from its weight Government ofthe Virgin Islands v Public Employee Relatzons Board 22 VI

12 23 (VI Terr 1986) Finally, when the Court reviews an agency record for lack of substantial

evidence, it must be conscious of the ALJ s opportunity to appraise the credibillty and consider the

weight of the evidence in the first instance 11am De Velez » I 1; gm Islands Dept of Lab

Memorandum Opinion and Order No ST 13 CV 268 at 3 (VI Super July 25 2018)

$14 Here the ALJ heard and considered the testimony of two individuals Petitioner

Philsbert Codrington, and Brent Whitney, Respondent GME’s owner and manager The record

shows that at the hearing, both Codrington and Whitney were permitted to speak at length about

their recollection of the events preceding and following the September 22, 2009 incident At one

point during the hearing, the ALJ even admonished Whitney for interrupting Codrington as he

testified The ALJ heard Codrington corroborate the fact that Whitney did indeed say that if he left

the premises, it would be regarded as a “voluntary resignation ” Finally, the AL} heard Codrington

state, under oath, that he never heard Whitney expressly say ‘ you are fired ’ in the parking lot The
Philsbeit Codrmg10n v GME Dospzva LLC and Dept ofLabor SX 2010 CV 00102

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Page 6 0f 7 2023 Vi SUPER 80U

testimony and documentary evidence cons1dered by the ALJ, coupled with the AL] 5 corroboration

0f the facts during direct examination of both parties at the hearing, supports the AL] 5 conclusion

that Codrington voluntarily quit his job, and a reasonable person could reach the same conclusion

if presented with the same evidence

B Codrington voluntarily quit his job without good cause under section 304(b)(2)

1115 In his Petition Codrington contends that the AL] failed to follow the statutory

construction outlined in section § 304 (b)(2) Codrington contends that the AL] erred in concluding

that he left his position without good cause despite making a finding that Codrington 3 personal

situation exacerbated his reactions towards Whitney

516 VI Code Ann tit 24, § 304(b)(2) disqualifies an insured worker from receiving

waiting week credit or benefits for any week of his employment if he left his most recent suitable

work voluntarily Without good cause ” However if the circumstances produce pressure to

terminate employment that is both real and substantial and would compel a reasonable person

under the circumstances to act in the same manner, the claimant has “good cause’ to ‘leave” a

job within the meaning of 24 VI C § 304(b)(2) Taylor v Unemployment Compensation Board of

Rewew 378 A 2d 829 832 33 (Pa 1977) (construing a similarly worded statute) That is the fact

that the claimant for unemployment benefits is the one who commences the termination, and he

does so of his own accord w1thout being fired or otherwise pressured by an employer to quit, does

not necessarily preclude a finding of “good cause” under the terms of most unemployment

schemes Cunnmgham v V] Empl S'ec Agency, 20 VI at 216—17 Although a subjective

dissatisfaction with working conditions or wages is not enough to show good cause, a claimant

could be justified in voluntarily separating from his or her employment where the discontent is

based upon a substantial change in wages or working conditions that would make the work no

longer suitable for the claimant considering the claimant s qualifications, earning ability, physical

fitness and the like Id at 217

1i] 7 In the instant case, the record shows that it was in fact Codrington who unilateraily

initiated a substantial change in his own work conditions by reducing his working hours below

fulltime, to the detriment of his employer GME The record shows that Codrington’s employer

was making a good, and ostensibly sincere effort to accommodate the changes and issues
Philsbert Codrmgton t GME Dospzva LLC and Dept ofLabor SX 2010 CV 00102

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Page 7 of 7 2023 VI SUPER 80U

Codrington was experiencing in his personal life and that Whitney as manager and owner, was

only asking Codrington to return to fulltime status and learn new skills that would likely benefit

Codrington’s future career prospects as a C A D operator While it is apparent from the

jurisprudence that the initiation of termination by an employee is not in and of itself sufficient to

render his resignation as one ‘ without cause,” it is equally clear from the jurisprudence that the

underlying reasons for the separation must stem from changes in working condltions, not changes

in an employee 3 personal circumstances Here, it was Codrington’s work habits and work quality

that changed, not the working conditions nor the wages that GME was offering him Therefore,

Codrington did not have good cause to quit under the meaning of § 304(b)(2) and, accordingly, the

AL} did not err in finding that he left his position without good cause In light of the foregoing, it

is hereby

ORDERED that the decision in the matter PHIL ?BERT C ()DRINGTOV V. GME

D09PIVA LLC (V 1 App No 016 02 10) is AFFIRMED It is further

ORDERED that Petitioner 3 Petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUIDCE It is further

ORDERED that this case is CLOSED

DATED December 3‘ 2023 QW

DOUGLAS A BRADY J GE

ATTEST

TAMARA CHARLES

Cierk of the Co

By é%: fl—

Court Clerk pervisor
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

District of St. Croix

PHILSBERT CODRINGTON,

 Petitioner,

v.

GME DOSPIVA LLC AND 

COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT 

OF LABOR,

 Respondents. 

 

 Case Number: SX-2010-CV-00102

 Action: Writ of Review

NOTICE of ENTRY

of

JUDGMENT/ORDER

To: Philsbert Codrington, pro se

 Michael R. Francisco, Esq., AAG

H.A. Curt Otto, Esq.

Please take notice that on December 21, 2023

a(n) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

dated December 21, 2023 was/were entered

by the Clerk in the above-titled matter.

Dated: December 21, 2023 Tamara Charles

Clerk of the Court

By:

Cheryl Parris

Court Clerk III