2014 UT App 292

_________________________________________________________



### T H E 

### U T A H 

### C O U RT O F 

### A P P E A L S

B I L QUI S D H E D H

Y , Peti tioner,

v. D E PAR TM E N T OF W O R

KF O RC E S E R

V I C E S , Respondent.

Per CuriamDeci si on No. 20140183-CA Filed D ecember 18, 2014

Or i gin al Proceedi ng i n thi s Court

Bi lqui s Dh edhy, Petiti oner Pr o S e Suzan Pi xto n, Atto rney fo r Respondent

Before J UD G E S S T E P H E N L. R OT H , J O H N A. P E ARC E, and K AT E A. T O OM E Y

.

PER CURIAM :
¶1 Bi lqui s Dh edhy seeks rev i ew of the final deci si on of the Wor kfor ce A p peals Board (the Board). Dhedhy asserts that the Board err ed in deter mini ng that she qui t her posi tion wi thout goo d

caus e, ther eby makin g her ineli gib le for unemployment benefi ts.

¶2 The Board’ s deci si on concerni ng whether a person
vo luntaril y qui t her employment and the associ ated inqui ries concerni ng that person’s quali fi cati on for benefi t s a r e mi xed questi ons o f fact and law that are more fact-li ke becau se the case “does not lend i tself to consi stent resolution by a uni form b ody of appellate precedent.” Carbon County v. Work force A ppeals Bd. , 2013 UT 41, ¶ 7, 3 0 8 P.3d 477 (ci tation and i nternal quotat i on marks omi tte d). “Becaus e of the fact-intensi ve conclu si ons i nvolv ed at the agency level,” the Board’ s deter minati on i n such matter s i s entitledDhedhy v. Department of Work force Ser vices

to d e fe re n c e

. I

d. “When a petiti oner challen ges an agency’s findin gs of fact, we are required to uphold the findings i f they are supp or ted by sub stanti al evidenc e when vi ewed in li ght of the whole recor d before the court.” Stauffer v. Department of Work force Servs. , 2014 UT App 63, ¶ 5, 325 P.3d 109 (ci tations and int e rnal quotat i on marks omi tte d).

¶3 Dhedhy arg ues that the Board err ed i n i ts d e te rm in a ti on that she qui t her employment. The recor d supp or ts the Admi ni strat i ve Law Judge’s (A L J) and the Board’ s findings. Speci fi cally, the employer present ed ext ensi ve testim ony concerni ng Dhedhy’s comments to numerous employ ees abo ut he r deci si on to qui t her

e mp l o yment on Sept ember 20, 2013. Dhedhy repeat edly maintain ed t ha t she was resi gni ng and that the only reason for delay

was her need to prepare a lette r of resi gnation. The employer met wi th Dhedhy on Sept ember 2 0 , 2 0 1 3, to di scu ss the contents of certain electro ni c conver sati ons she was havin g wi th other employees and the status of her employment. She conti nued to maintain duri ng that meetin g that she i ntended to qui t. Becaus e the employer was worr i ed about Dhedhy’s tr uthfuln ess a nd the potent i al for di srupti on to those aro und her, the employer deci ded to accept her resi gnation on that day. The testim ony demonstrate d that duri ng that meetin g, Dhedhy never equi vo cated her desi re to qui t her employment or other wi se i nformed the employer that she merely wi shed to be tr ansferr ed to another di vis i on. Accordi ngly, based on the evidenc e presented, we cannot di sagre e wit h the Board’ s determin ation D hedhy vo luntaril y qui t her e mployment.

¶4 A c lai mant who vo luntaril y qu i ts employment m ay s till be entitled to benefi ts i f she shows goo d caus e for the separation or i f denyi ng benefi ts would be contrar y to equi ty and goo d consc i ence. See Utah Admi n Code

. R994-405-101(3)

. “To establi sh goo d caus e,
a clai mant mus t show that conti nuing the employment would have

ca us e d an adver se effect whi ch the clai mant could not contro l or prev ent. The cl ai mant mus t show that an i mmedi ate sever ance of the relat i onshi p was necess ary .” Id. R994-405-102. Furt her, even i f

an adver se effect i s shown, goo d caus e may not be fo un d i f the

20140183-CA 2 2014 UT App 292Dhedhy v. Department of Work force Ser vices

clai mant reasonably could have conti nued work i ng whi le look i ng for other employment. See id. R994-405-102(1) (b). The Board deter mined that D hedhy fai led to demonstr ate t hat she had good

ca use to qui t her employment. Speci fi cally, i n explain i ng her acti ons, Dhedhy prov i ded two examples of statements that she found hosti le. The Board found that whi le Dhedhy may have been offended by the statements, the statements were not ho st ile or eviden c e of d i scri minati on. Furt her, the only evidenc e that Dhedhy p re s e n te d concerni ng how she was bei ng d i s c ri m in a te d a ga in s t w a s he r own testim ony. However , the Board di d not find Dh e d hy credible i n many of her statem e nts. Thus, the Board deter mined that becau se of the lack of cre d ibl e evidenc e demonstrating di scri minati on, i t could not conclu de that Dhed hy had demonstrat ed an undu e ha r d shi p associ ated wi th maintai ni ng her employment. Based on the deference we afford such deci si ons, we cannot conclu de that the B oard err ed i n maki ng thi s deter minati on.
¶5 Addi tiona l l y, the Board deter mined that denyi ng benefi ts i n thi s case would not be contrar y to equi ty and goo d consc i ence. See id. R994-405-103. To meet thi s standard, a clai mant mu st d emonst r a t e t hat her acti ons were reasonable and that there were mi tigati ng ci rcums tances that would make the deni al of benefi ts an affront to fai rness. See id. R994-405-103(1) (a). As stated above, the Bo ard found Dhedhy’s accoun t of di scri minati on and her clai ms that she was subjected to a hosti le work environment t o no t be credible. Accordi ngly, i t deter mined that Dhedhy fai led to demonstrat e any mi tigati ng ci rcums tance that would meet the equi ty and goo d consc i ence standard. Furt her, the Board could not say that Dhedhy’s actions i n r epeatedly telling her employer that she was qui tting when, accordi ng to her, the opposi te was tr ue, were reasonable. Based on t he recor d before us, we cannot say that t he Board abused i ts di screti on i n so concl uding.
¶6 Accordi ngly, we de c l in e to d i s tu rb th e B oa rd ’s fin a l d eci si on.

20140183-CA 3 2014 UT App 292