Case Name: Norma Brya SELL v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1986-12-09
Citations: 499 So. 2d 1285
Docket Number: No. CA-6059
Parties: Norma Brya SELL v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, et al.
Judges: Before REDMANN, GULOTTA and CIACCIO, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 499
Pages: 1285–1288

Head Matter:
Norma Brya SELL v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, et al.
No. CA-6059.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Dec. 9, 1986.
Victor M. Ortiz, New Orleans, for appellant.
Sloan McCloskey, New Orleans, for ap-pellee.
Before REDMANN, GULOTTA and CIACCIO, JJ.

Opinion:
CIACCIO, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals a district court judgment upholding a decision of the Board of Review of the Louisiana Department of Employment Security. The Board of Review had decided that because plaintiff left her job without good cause connected with her employment, she was disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits. See La.R.S. 23:1601(1). We affirm.
Judicial review of decisions of the Board of Review is confined to questions of law. The factual findings of the Board of Review are conclusive, if supported by sufficient evidence and in the absence of fraud. La.R.S. 23:1634. Two questions of law are presented for resolution by the court:
1) Are the findings of fact supported by sufficient evidence as a matter of law?
2) Based on those findings are the legal conclusions of the Board correct?
The factual findings of the Board are supported by sufficient evidence. They are:
The claimant was employed by [Family Service Society] as a social worker from April 12, 1982, to May 25, 1983. The claimant had tendered her resignation to the employing unit to be effective June 30, 1983, because of a change in the job assignment requiring her to travel. On or about May 16, 1983, the employer advanced the claimant's separation date to May 81, 1983. This action was a result of the claimant's refusal to attend a conference on May 13,1983. The conference was in regard to a client complaint about the claimant's treatment of the client. The reason for the claimant's refusal was that she had already attended several conferences about the matter, and this client had been transferred to another worker. On Monday, May 23, 1983, the claimant advised the employer that Friday, May 27, 1983, would be her last day of work. She was given permission to use Monday, May 30, 1983, and Tuesday, May 31, 1983, as vacation days. The employer granted this permission contingent on the claimant closing her files and completing the transfer of her clients. The claimant worked through Thursday, May 26, 1983, but failed to show up for work on May 27, 1983. The claimant acknowledged that her files were not complete at the time of separation.
When informed of the scheduled conference on May 13, 1983, plaintiff responded by writing a memo on that day to the director of Family Service. In her memo plaintiff revealed her decision not to attend the conference. She further stated,
I feel I am being harrassed. I am willing to do my job until my effective date of resignation, June 30, 1983. If that is not feasible, please let me know this by Monday, May 16,1983, so that I can make the necessary arrangements to pick up my personal items from my office.
On Monday, May 16, 1983, the director responded to plaintiff as follows:
You have chosen not to attend a scheduled conference with Mara Rubio in follow-up to her and Jim Feldman's memo on a number of important administrative issues. I advised you of the seriousness of not doing so in our conferences on Friday, May 13th, and this morning.
In view of the fact that you choose not to discuss important issues through this conference, I am setting as your final date of employment May 31, 1983. I am asking you to work with your supervisor to terminate or transfer your cliente in as orderly a way as possible during the next two weeks.
The decision of the Board of Review does not address whether plaintiff was being "harassed." The Appeals Referee, however, found "no basis to the claimant's allegations that she was treated arbitrarily and capriciously by the employer." In an earlier opinion the Appeals Referee found, "There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that claimant was either treated arbitrary [sic] or discriminatorily by the employer." These findings are supported by the evidence.
In February 1983 plaintiff tendered her resignation effective the end of June 1983. In the midst of an interoffice conflict in mid-May of 1983, plaintiff expressed her willingness to work through the end of June, but requested of her director, "If that is not feasible, please let me know this by Monday, May 16, 1983, so that I can make the necessary arrangements to pick up my personal items from my office." Responding by Monday, May 16, 1983, as plaintiff requested, the director informed her that he was "setting as your final date of employment May 31, 1983." Plaintiff was paid through May 31, 1983.
Plaintiff resigned her position. As a result of an interoffice conflict, the effective date of her resignation was advanced one month. The evidence indicates that plaintiff precipitated this advancement and that a final date of employment of May 31, 1988, was agreeable to her. The decision of the Board of Review that plaintiff left her employment without good cause connected with her employment and was, therefore, disqualified for benefits under La.R.S. 23:1601(1) is correct. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court which upheld the decision of the Board of Review.
AFFIRMED.
GULOTTA, J., dissents with reasons.