2016 UT App 21

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

BRYAN FALLSTROM,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES,

Respondent.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20150202-CA

Filed Februray 4, 2016

Original Proceedings in this Court

Bryan Fallstrom, Petitioner Pro Se

Suzan Pixton, Attorney for Respondent

Before JUDGES STEPHEN L. ROTH, MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN, and 

KATE A. TOOMEY.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Bryan Fallstrom seeks judicial review of the final decision 

of the Workforce Appeals Board (the Board). Fallstrom asserts 

that the Board erred in determining that he quit his position 

without good cause, thereby making him ineligible for 

unemployment benefits.

¶2 The Board’s decision concerning whether a person 

voluntarily quit his 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 to deference. Id. “When a petitioner challenges 

an agency’s findings of fact, we are required to uphold the 
Fallstrom v. Department of Workforce Services

20150202-CA 2 2016 UT App 21

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 Fallstrom argues that the Board erred in its determination 

that he voluntarily quit his employment. A termination of 

employment is considered a voluntary quit when the employee 

is the moving party in ending the employment relationship. See

Utah Admin. Code R994-405-101(1). The record supports the 

Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) and the Board’s findings that 

Fallstrom was the moving party in ending the employment 

relationship. Specifically, Fallstrom requested several weeks off 

between June and August of 2014. Fallstrom also indicated that 

he did not know if he would be available to work from 

September through November of that year. Employer indicated 

that it had one to three shifts per week available for Fallstrom 

and that Employer did not think it would be able to 

accommodate his significant vacation requests. Representatives 

of Employer testified that in response to this information

Fallstrom suggested that he simply leave his employment and 

come back to work at the end of the time he requested off. 

Employer’s manager, in turn, told Fallstrom that she would hire

him back when he returned. Thus, evidence demonstrated that 

Fallstrom had the option of continued part-time employment, 

but chose to quit instead. Fallstrom contested some of this 

testimony. However, both the ALJ and the Board found the 

Employer’s account to be more credible. See Salt Lake City Corp. 

v. Department of Emp’t Sec., 657 P.2d 1312, 1312 (Utah 1982) 

(stating that an agency, as opposed to the reviewing court,

resolves conflicting facts). Accordingly, based on the evidence 

presented, we cannot disagree with the Board’s determination 

that Fallstrom voluntarily quit his employment.

¶4 A claimant who voluntarily quits employment may still 

be entitled to benefits if he 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). 
Fallstrom v. Department of Workforce Services

20150202-CA 3 2016 UT App 21

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. Good cause is also established if a 

claimant left work which is shown to have been 

illegal or to have been unsuitable new work.

Id. R994-405-102. Further, even if an adverse effect is shown, 

good cause may not be found if the claimant reasonably could 

have continued working while looking for other employment. 

See id. R994-405-102(1)(b). Here, Fallstrom does not argue that he 

had good cause to end his employment; accordingly, we do not 

address the issue.

¶5 Fallstrom does argue, however, that it would be contrary 

to equity and good conscience to deny him benefits. See id. R994-

405-103. To meet this standard, a claimant must demonstrate 

that his 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). The Board determined that 

Fallstrom failed to make such a demonstration because he did 

not act reasonably. Specifically, the Board determined that 

Fallstrom acted unreasonably in asking for an excessive number

of vacation days and in deciding to leave his employment rather 

than remaining employed and working the shifts offered. 

Accordingly, the Board found that Fallstrom failed to meet the 

standards of the equity and good conscience exception. 

Fallstrom has provided us with no evidence to demonstrate that 

the Board abused its discretion in so finding.

¶6 Accordingly, we decline to disturb the decision of the 

Board.