Opinion ID: 2321606
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: good cause for voluntarily terminating employment

Text: Thompson contends that she voluntarily terminated her employment for good cause, and thus is entitled to unemployment benefits. Specifically, Thompson claims that the problematic nature of her work environment, especially the excessive turnover, unprofessional conduct and inability to transfer, created a chaotic atmosphere which justified her voluntarily terminating her employment. Under 19 Del. C. § 3314(1), an individual cannot qualify for unemployment benefits where that individual leaves work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work. . . . [10] The Superior Court has defined good cause as such cause as would justify one in voluntarily leaving the ranks of the employed and joining the ranks of the unemployed . . . [A]n employee does not have good cause to quit merely because there is an undesirable or unsafe situation connected with his employment. He must do something akin to exhausting his administrative remedies. . . . [11] This Court has not previously defined good cause in the context of unemployment compensation. The Federal Unemployment Tax Act bars unemployment benefits if an employee voluntarily leaves work without good cause. [12] After analyzing cases from other jurisdictions, we conclude that Delaware needs a more contextually appropriate definition of good cause. [13] In this context, good cause is established where: (i) an employee voluntarily leaves employment for reasons attributable to issues within the employer's control and under circumstances in which no reasonably prudent employee would have remained employed; and (ii) the employee first exhausts all reasonable alternatives to resolve the issues before voluntarily terminating his or her employment. The UIAB found that, [a]lthough it does not appear that [Thompson] was the focus of [] hostility, she did work around or among fellow workers who did not get along, and she was faced with a turnover of co-workers, whereas she could not obtain a transfer. [14] Thompson persuaded the [UIAB] that her work was affected by an unpleasant atmosphere within the facility, involving the behavior of her fellow employees toward one another. [15] Based on these findings the UIAB held: Ordinarily, the conduct of others would not provide good cause for terminating employment. However, the evidence here is that the situation was ongoing and had deteriorated. It appears that the [Center] failed to address the situation, except by allowing employees other than [Thompson] to transfer. . . . She thus had good cause to leave her employment. . . . [16] The Superior Court, relying on Swann v. Cabinetry Unlimited [17] and Ament v. Rosenbluth International, [18] disagreed with the UIAB's application of the good cause test to Thompson's case. That court held that unhappiness arising out of an unpleasant work environment does not constitute good cause for purposes of 19 Del. C. § 3314(1). In Swann, the Superior Court held that [t]he employee must develop a tolerance level to bear minor deviations in the working condition as long as there is not a lessening of basic employment rights or cruel and harsh punishment by the employer. [19] In Ament, the Superior Court held that an employee did not have good cause to leave her employment simply because she was in an undesirable situation. Good cause exists when [an employee's] ability to earn a living is jeopardized and that was not the case here. [20] The record does not support Thompson's assertion that she voluntarily terminated her employment because the Center denied her requests to transfer to other wellness centers. Nothing in the record supports the factual finding, made by the UIAB, that others were allowed to transfer to another facility or a different job, but [Thompson] was repeatedly denied this option. [21] The Superior Court properly concluded that [t]he record is devoid of any indication that Thompson was qualified for any of the positions she sought or why she was not granted what she sought. [22] In fact, the UIAB found that Thompson failed to present evidence that she was qualified for a transfer or that the Center improperly denied her transfer requests. [23] The UIAB correctly found that Thompson failed to establish that she was the victim of a hostile work environment. Thompson's unhappiness arose out of her disagreements with her manager and the conduct of her co-workersa situation that Thompson decided was personally untenable. We agree with the Superior Court that unhappiness arising out of an unpleasant work environment, without more, does not constitute good cause. Therefore, the record lacks substantial evidence supporting the UIAB's conclusion that the Center improperly denied Thompson's transfer requests. Accordingly, the UIAB erred as a matter of law by determining that Thompson left her job for good cause.