Court Opinion

ID: 9581276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:13:14.731608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:49.253011
License: Public Domain

LANGTRY, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the court’s opinion, but think something additional needs to be said in this case.
The testimony as a whole leads to the inevitable inference that claimant began going out of her way to object to the cartoon and pictures soon after she became employed. She had no compelling need to go into the men’s lunchroom where the cartoon was posted. The only things she went there for were use of a pencil sharpener and to get soft drinks and candy from a vending machine. Employer testified that there was another pencil sharpener available, and that he would have bought claimant one if she had asked for it. The *447evidence indicates claimant could have had someone bring her soft drinks and candy if she was offended when she went for them. Instead, she continued to go there, and finally took the cartoon down and placed it in the waste basket — causing herself more trouble.
I would hold that if the cartoon — a copy of it is in evidence, and it is hardly as horrendous as words have pictured it — were posted in such a way as to be forced on claimant, she may have had cause to quit because of undue harassment. But I think the facts here indicate she sought harassment and found it. This is not “good cause” for quitting employment in the sense in which we consider the term here.