2014 UT App 292

_________________________________________________________

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

BILQUIS DHEDHY,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES,

Respondent.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20140183-CA

Filed December 18, 2014

Original Proceeding in this Court

Bilquis Dhedhy, Petitioner Pro Se

Suzan Pixton, Attorney for Respondent

Before JUDGES STEPHEN L. ROTH, JOHN A. PEARCE, 

and KATE A. TOOMEY.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Bilquis Dhedhy seeks review of the final decision of the

Workforce Appeals Board (the Board). Dhedhy asserts that the

Board erred in determining that she quit her position without good

cause, thereby making her ineligible for unemployment benefits.

¶2 The Board’s decision concerning whether a person

voluntarily quit her employment and the associated inquiries

concerning that person’s qualification for benefits are mixed

questions of fact and law that are more fact-like because the case

“does not lend itself to consistent resolution by a uniform body of

appellate precedent.” Carbon County v. Workforce Appeals Bd., 2013

UT 41, ¶ 7, 308 P.3d 477 (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). “Because of the fact-intensive conclusions involved at the

agency level,” the Board’s determination in such matters is entitled
Dhedhy v. Department of Workforce Services

todeference.Id. “When a petitioner challenges an agency’s findings

of fact, we are required to uphold the findings if they are supported

by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record

before the court.” Stauffer v. Department of Workforce Servs., 2014 UT

App 63, ¶ 5, 325 P.3d 109 (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted).

¶3 Dhedhy argues that the Board erred in itsdeterminationthat

she quit her employment. The record supports the Administrative

Law Judge’s (ALJ) and the Board’s findings. Specifically, the

employer presented extensive testimony concerning Dhedhy’s

comments to numerous employees about her decision to quit her

employment on September 20, 2013. Dhedhy repeatedly maintained that she was resigning and that the only reason for delay

was her need to prepare a letter of resignation. The employer met

with Dhedhy on September 20, 2013, to discuss the contents of

certain electronic conversations she was having with other

employees and the status of her employment. She continued to

maintain during that meeting that she intended to quit. Because the

employer was worried about Dhedhy’s truthfulness and the

potential for disruption to those around her, the employer decided

to accept her resignation on that day. The testimony demonstrated

that during that meeting, Dhedhy never equivocated her desire to

quit her employment or otherwise informed the employerthat she

merely wished to be transferred to another division. Accordingly,

based on the evidence presented, we cannot disagree with the

Board’s determination Dhedhy voluntarily quit her employment.

¶4 A claimant who voluntarily quits employment may still be

entitled to benefits if she shows good cause for the separation or if

denying benefits would be contrary to equity and good conscience.

See Utah Admin Code. R994-405-101(3). “To establish good cause,

a claimant must show that continuing the employment would have

caused an adverse effect which the claimant could not control or

prevent. The claimant must show that an immediate severance of

the relationship was necessary.” Id. R994-405-102. Further, even if

an adverse effect is shown, good cause may not be found if the

20140183-CA 2 2014 UT App 292
Dhedhy v. Department of Workforce Services

claimant reasonably could have continued working while looking

for other employment. See id. R994-405-102(1)(b). The Board

determined that Dhedhy failed to demonstrate that she had good

cause to quit her employment. Specifically, in explaining her

actions, Dhedhy provided two examples of statements that she

found hostile. The Board found that while Dhedhy may have been

offended by the statements, the statements were not hostile or

evidence ofdiscrimination. Further, the only evidence that Dhedhy

presentedconcerning how she was being discriminatedagainst was

her own testimony. However, the Board did not find Dhedhy

credible in many of her statements. Thus, the Board determined

that because of the lack of credible evidence demonstrating

discrimination, it could not conclude that Dhedhy had demonstrated an undue hardship associated with maintaining her

employment. Based on the deference we afford such decisions, we

cannot conclude that theBoard erred in making this determination.

¶5 Additionally,the Board determined that denying benefits in

this case would not be contrary to equity and good conscience. See

id. R994-405-103. To meet this standard, a claimant must demonstrate that her actions were reasonable and that there were

mitigating circumstances that would make the denial of benefits an

affront to fairness. See id. R994-405-103(1)(a). As stated above, the

Board found Dhedhy’s account of discrimination and her claims

that she was subjected to a hostile work environment to not be

credible. Accordingly, it determined that Dhedhy failed to demonstrate any mitigating circumstance that would meet the equity and

good conscience standard. Further, the Board could not say that

Dhedhy’s actions in repeatedly telling her employer that she was

quitting when, according to her, the opposite was true, were

reasonable. Based on the record before us, we cannot say that the

Board abused its discretion in so concluding.

¶6 Accordingly, we decline todisturbtheBoard’s finaldecision.

20140183-CA 3 2014 UT App 292