Opinion ID: 2451259
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We analyze both transportation problems and workplace hostility as potential precipitating causes.

Text: The Hearing Officer identified transportation problems as the precipitating cause of Calvert's decision to quit. The BPM provides that, where a worker gives multiple reasons for quitting, the one reason that was the precipitating event is the real cause of the quit, with the other reasons being incidental. In such cases, good cause depends on the precipitating event and the other reasons are irrelevant. [38] In other words, whether a worker has shown good cause for quitting is to be analyzed in reference only to the event that directly led the worker to quit and not to any other events or circumstances. Throughout her application for unemployment benefits and subsequent appeals process, Calvert identified two major factors transportation obstacles and workplace hostilityin her decision to quit. During the hearing on her administrative appeal, the Hearing Officer asked Calvert whether it was her transportation difficulties or personality conflicts that caused her to quit. Calvert answered, It's both of them . . . I don't know if one . . . had been taken away, if the other one could have been solved and vice versa. The Hearing Officer then asked, If CARTS had not been giving you any difficulty on that day, would you still have quit your job? Calvert replied, I think I would have gone to work, yes. I think I would have given it another week. . . . I might have tried the new schedule. I might have complained harder. Based on this testimony, the Hearing Officer concluded that the precipitating event in Calvert's quitting was the loss of transportation, and she therefore limited her good cause analysis to transportation issues. In her brief to our court, Calvert objects that the Hearing Officer took her words out of context, focusing on [t]he one comment [she] elicited which was speculative, retrospective, and in conflict with prior testimony and actions. While there is no indication that the Hearing Officer's question was intentionally designed to trick Calvertindeed, the question's structure simply reflected the BPM's emphasis on determining which event led a worker to quit at [a] particular time [39] we nonetheless acknowledge that the Hearing Officer's question may have elicited a different answer than Calvert would have provided in response to an alternatively worded or more open-ended inquiry. [40] Therefore, we analyze both transportation problems and workplace hostility to determine whether Calvert demonstrated good cause for leaving work on the basis of either issue.