COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HELEN M. JACKSON,

 Appellant,

v.

TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION 

and AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO.,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00016-CV

Appeal from the

352nd District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC#352-267004-13)

O P I N I O N

Helen M. Jackson, a pro se litigant, appeals the trial court’s judgment affirming the Texas 

Workforce Commission’s (TWC) denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Appellees 

include the TWC and Jackson’s former employer, Aetna Life Insurance Company. We affirm.

1

BACKGROUND

Jackson was a social worker who had worked as a clinical counselor for Aetna since 

October 2011. The parties agreed that Jackson quit her job on January 17, 2013, by submitting a 

letter of resignation. Jackson had been previously informed that she was going to be placed on a 

performance improvement plan. On Friday January 11, Jackson’s supervisor notified her that the 

plan had been prepared and was ready for her to review and sign by the following Monday. The 

 

1

This case was transferred from the Fort Worth Court of Appeals, and we decide it in accordance with the precedent 

of that Court to the extent required by TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2

next day, Saturday January 12, she reviewed the plan and discovered that an earlier incident was 

on her record. The earlier incident involved alleged false statements Jackson had made in a 

client’s record. Jackson believed this incident had already been reviewed and was going to be 

removed from her record. Jackson called in sick on Monday and Tuesday, January 14 and 15, and 

was not scheduled to work on Wednesday January 16.

On January 17, 2013, Jackson called the Aetna human resources department (HR) about 

this issue. After informing a member of the HR staff about her concerns, a case was opened to 

investigate Jackson’s allegations. During this same phone call, HR made an appointment for 

Jackson to speak to an HR representative on January 22 about her concerns. Jackson was also 

told to inform her supervisor about the case, which she failed to do. Rather than wait until the 

meeting with HR on January 22 to address the issue, Jackson submitted her letter of resignation, 

effective immediately, on January 17. Jackson’s letter of resignation informed Aetna that she was

quitting because the earlier incident was cited in the improvement plan, not because she was 

getting a poor performance review. Jackson did not speak with anyone at Aetna to resolve her 

concerns over the falsification issue being included in the performance improvement plan before

resigning. Jackson testified that she did not wait until the January 22 appointment with HR 

because she didn’t trust HR and it was imperative to leave work to protect herself from “any other 

damage happening.”

Jackson applied for unemployment benefits. The TWC determined that she was not 

entitled to compensation because her reason for quitting was not considered good cause connected 

with the work. At Jackson’s request, the TWC Appeal Tribunal reviewed the decision and 

affirmed the TWC’s denial of unemployment benefits. The Tribunal found that Jackson had quit 
3

her job on January 17 in response to certain items in the written performance improvement plan 

that she strongly disagreed with, but that while HR on January 17 had opened a case to investigate 

her allegations and set up an appointment on January 22 for her to meet with HR to discuss her 

concerns, Jackson did not speak to anyone else about the performance plan or her intention to 

resign but rather submitted her letter of resignation to her employer effective immediately. Citing 

a statutory provision in the Act and the TWC policy manual providing that a claimant has good 

cause to quit only after making a reasonable effort to resolve legitimate complaints with 

management, the TWC Appeal Tribunal concluded that Jackson had failed to establish good cause 

connected with the work sufficient to quit her job and qualify for unemployment insurance 

benefits. Subsequently, the TWC considered Jackson’s appeal from the Appeal Tribunal and 

affirmed, adopting the findings and conclusions of the Appeal Tribunal.

Jackson then filed a petition for review of the TWC decision in district court. Following a 

bench trial, in which the district court considered the case on the record before the TWC, the 

district court affirmed the TWC’s decision, stating in the judgment that the TWC’s decision was 

supported by substantial evidence.

DISCUSSION

In one issue on appeal, Jackson complains the trial court erred in upholding the TWC’s 

ruling, because she voluntarily left her employment with good cause.

Standard of Review

Judicial review of a TWC determination is by “trial de novo based on the substantial 

evidence rule.” TEX. LAB.CODE ANN. § 212.202(a) (West 2015). The TWC’s ruling carries a 

presumption of validity, and thus Jackson, as the party seeking to set aside the decision, had the 
4

burden to show that it was not supported by substantial evidence. Collingsworth Gen. Hosp. v. 

Hunnicutt, 988 S.W.2d 706, 708 (Tex. 1998); Uranga v. Texas Workforce Comm’n, 319 S.W.3d 

787, 789 (Tex.App. – El Paso 2010, no pet.). Under the substantial evidence standard of review, 

the issue is whether the evidence introduced before the trial court shows facts in existence at the 

time of TWC’s decision that reasonably support the decision. Collingsworth Gen. Hosp., 988 

S.W.2d at 708; Uranga, 319 S.W.3d at 789; see also Blanchard v. Brazos Forest Products, L.P., 

353 S.W.3d 569, 572 (Tex.App. – Fort Worth 2011, pet. denied). A reviewing court may not set 

aside a TWC decision merely because it would reach a different conclusion. Collingsworth Gen. 

Hosp., 988 S.W.2d at 708; Uranga, 319 S.W.3d at 789. It may do so only if it finds that TWC’s 

decision was made without regard to the law or the facts and therefore was unreasonable, arbitrary, 

or capricious. Collingsworth Gen. Hosp., 988 S.W.2d at 708; Uranga, 319 S.W.3d at 789. If 

any reasonable person could have come to the same conclusion as the TWC based on the evidence, 

the agency’s decision must be upheld, even if the reviewing court would have reached a different 

conclusion. DeMarsh v. Texas Workforce Comm’n, No. 02-03-081-CV, 2003 WL 22725507, at 

*2 (Tex.App. – Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2003, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Where the 

agency’s decision is shown to be against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, a 

court, as a matter of law, is still bound to affirm the agency decision as long as a reasonable person 

could have reached the conclusion reached by the agency. Id.

The ultimate issue in this appeal is whether the trial court correctly determined that the 

TWC’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Whether the TWC’s decision is 

supported by substantial evidence is strictly a question of law. Mercer v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 830, 

831 (Tex. 1986); Uranga, 319 S.W.3d at 789. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla 
5

of evidence but less than a preponderance of evidence. Uranga, 319 S.W.3d at 789. 

Consequently, the evidence may preponderate against TWC’s decision but still amount to 

substantial evidence. Id.; Blanchard, 353 S.W.3d at 572.

Analysis

The Texas Unemployment Compensation Act provides that an “individual is disqualified 

for benefits if the individual left the individual’s last work voluntarily without good cause 

connected with the individual’s work.” TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 207.045(a) (West 2015). The 

TWC defines “good cause” to include a cause related to an individual’s work that “would cause a 

person who is genuinely interested in retaining work to nevertheless leave the job.” Texas 

Workforce Commission, Appeals Policy and Precedent Manual, Voluntary Leaving, § VL 210.00, 

http://www.twc.state.tx.us/files/jobseekers/appeals-policy-precedent-manual-voluntary-leaving-t

wc.pdf (last visited June 2, 2016). Germane to the present case, the TWC has further defined 

“good cause” in its policies and decisions to mean that a claimant has good cause connected with 

the work for quitting only “after making a reasonable effort to resolve legitimate complaints with 

management.” Id., citing Appeal No. 1089-CA-72. Applying the TWC definition, we conclude 

the evidence supports the TWC’s decision to deny Jackson’s claim for unemployment 

compensation benefits.

Jackson voluntarily terminated her employment with Aetna without providing Aetna an 

opportunity to resolve the situation that Jackson claims forced her to resign. A reasonable person 

genuinely interested in retaining work would afford his employer the opportunity to resolve 

concerns before summarily resigning. Jackson informed HR of her concerns on January 17 and

was given the opportunity to come meet with HR on January 22 to discuss her concerns, and yet 
6

Jackson did not make a reasonable effort to resolve her complaints with Aetna by attending that

meeting, but rather submitted her letter of resignation effective immediately on January 17. A 

reasonable person genuinely interested in retaining work would have first attended the planned 

meeting to see if their concerns could be addressed, or at a minimum would have requested the 

meeting occur sooner. Jackson did neither. It was not unreasonable for the TWC to conclude, 

based on the evidence, the Act, and TWC’s policies and prior decisions, that Jackson did not have 

good cause to leave her job. See DeMarsh, 2003 WL 22725507, at *3 (holding that trial court did 

not err in concluding TWC decision denying benefits was supported by substantial evidence when 

driller voluntarily left work because he believed oil rig was unsafe—and rig was later shown to be 

unsafe—but did not raise his safety concerns with his supervisor).

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we conclude the trial court correctly determined the TWC’s decision 

denying Jackson unemployment compensation benefits was supported by substantial evidence. 

Accordingly, we overrule Jackson’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

July 6, 2016

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.