Allen v. Partners in Healthcare, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 48722 |
| Citation | 512 P.3d 1093 |
| Parties | Patricia M. ALLEN, Claimant-Appellant, v. PARTNERS IN HEALTHCARE, INC., dba North Canyon Medical Center, Employer; and Idaho Department of Labor, Respondents. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
RandsLaw, PLLC, Twin Falls, for Patricia M. Allen, Appellant. Kirk Melton argued.
Elam & Burke, P.A., Boise, for Partners in Healthcare Inc. dba North Canyon Medical Center, Respondent. Jaclyn Gans argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Idaho Department of Labor, Respondent. Rafael Icaza argued.
Patricia M. Allen appeals from the Idaho Industrial Commission's (the "Commission") decision denying unemployment benefits. For the reasons set forth, we reverse the Commission's decision.
Allen was employed by Partners in Healthcare, Inc., doing business as North Canyon Medical Center ("NCMC"), between February 5, 1999, and May 8, 2020. On May 8, 2020, NCMC's Chief Executive Officer, J'Dee Adams and Human Resource Director, Kelly Herrgesell, met with Allen to discuss her job performance. Adams presented Allen with a performance improvement plan ("PIP"), which outlined examples of Allen's poor job performance and identified expectations for improving her performance. The PIP specified that Allen's performance would be tracked over the next thirty days and that Allen would be discharged if she failed to successfully complete the PIP's requirements, or if she violated NCMC's employee code of conduct or hospital policies.
Adams explained to Allen that if she wanted to forego the PIP, she could sign a severance agreement. Adams then presented Allen with a proposed severance agreement. Allen asked if she could discuss her options with her husband, but Adams said she needed to make her decision then and there. Adams also told Allen that he thought it was in her best interest to take the severance package. Allen decided to forgo the PIP and took the severance agreement.
After separating from NCMC, Allen filed an unemployment claim with the Idaho Department of Labor ("IDOL"). NCMC's response to the Idaho Department of Labor was prepared by the Idaho Hospital Association ("IHA"), NCMC's third-party administrator. Shawnee Christensen, IHA's human resources director, filled out the form and identified Allen's reason for separation as "Fired/Discharged" and indicated Allen did not receive any compensation after her separation. IDOL determined Allen was eligible for unemployment benefits.
After receiving notification that IDOL approved Allen's claim, Herrgesell sent an email to IDOL to appeal the decision. Herrgesell stated that NCMC was appealing the decision because Allen "resigned her employment after being put on a [PIP]." IDOL's Appeals Bureau scheduled a telephonic hearing for January 11, 2021. IDOL sent a hearing notice to Allen and NCMC, which stated that the hearing would determine whether Allen quit voluntarily and, if so, whether she quit for good cause or was discharged for misconduct in connection with her employment.
At the January 11, 2021, telephonic hearing, both parties testified, presented witnesses and made closing arguments. Allen was represented by legal counsel and NCMC was again represented by Christensen, IHA's human resources director. The IDOL appeals examiner asked additional questions of witnesses and ruled on objections.
Herrgesell testified that Allen had not been discharged, but instead was offered the options of staying on pursuant to the terms of the PIP or signing the severance agreement. Herrgesell explained that Allen could have continued working if she had accepted the PIP but instead chose the severance agreement. Allen's counsel attempted to cross-examine Herrgesell about the factual basis for the PIP and whether the alleged performance deficiencies were violations of NCMC policies. The appeals examiner sustained objections from Christensen that the questions were harassing. The appeals examiner advised Allen's counsel that she would not require Herrgesell to answer questions about the factual basis underlying the PIP because that was not the purpose of the hearing. Rather, the purpose of the hearing was to determine whether Allen had been discharged or whether she quit for good cause connected with her employment. Allen's counsel then tried to question Herrgesell about other terminations of female employees over age 50. The appeals examiner again sustained objections from Christensen. Allen's counsel argued he was entitled to question Herrgesell about other recent terminations and the "pretextual" nature of the PIP and the severance agreement because, taken together, they indicated that Allen had no choice but to take the severance. The appeals examiner disagreed and again stated the focus of the hearing was whether Allen had been discharged and, if not, whether she could have continued working.
In response to questions from the appeals examiner, Christensen explained that she indicated on NCMC's response to Allen's unemployment claim that Allen had been discharged because Christensen believed NCMC did not want to not contest the unemployment claim. Christensen stated that "Fired/Discharged" was the only option that allowed NCMC to not contest the claim. Christensen also explained that at the time she filled out the unemployment response she did not know whether Allen had been discharged.
Allen testified next. The appeals examiner began the questioning and asked Allen why she had resigned. Allen discussed the May 8 meeting where she was presented with the PIP and severance agreement. Allen stated she had previously been on a PIP in 2017 and successfully completed it after three months. She stated that Adams told her that he thought it was in her best interest to take the severance agreement and that her request for time to think about the two options was denied. Allen stated that the May 8 meeting left her with the impression that "the writing [was] on the wall" and that if she did not take the severance agreement at that time, she "probably would be" discharged.
Allen also testified that prior to the May 8 meeting she had applied for a promotional position and had not been selected. Allen stated she felt "harassed and bullied" by her new supervisor. Herrgesell testified that Allen complained to Herrgesell that her new supervisor was being too "restrictive." Although Allen was aware of NCMC's grievance procedures, she did not file a grievance. However, Allen did request and participate in mediation with her new supervisor, with Adams as the mediator. After a second mediation meeting, Allen claims Adams said, "something's got to change or else there is [sic] going to be changes around here."
Following the hearing, the appeals examiner issued a written decision that denied Allen unemployment benefits. The appeals examiner found that Allen chose to quit and take the severance agreement rather than explore viable alternatives to continue her employment. The examiner also found that Allen did not follow the grievance procedures to report her issues with her supervisor prior to quitting.
Allen appealed the appeals examiner's decision to the Commission and requested a new hearing and an opportunity to file a brief. The Commission denied Allen's motion for a new hearing but granted her motion to file a brief. The Commission gave several reasons for its decision denying a new hearing. First, it stated that Allen appeared to be building a case for age-based discrimination under "the Civil Rights Act" and an unemployment benefits hearing was not a forum for a civil lawsuit. Next, the Commission noted that Allen failed to utilize the remedy of requesting that the appeals examiner reopen the hearing to take the additional evidence that Allen claimed the appeals examiner had excluded during the telephonic hearing. Finally, the Commission noted that conducting a new hearing was an extraordinary measure and the Commission was unpersuaded that the circumstances of Allen's case merited such a remedy.
The Commission conducted a de novo review based on the record of the proceedings before the appeals examiner. On March 4, 2021, the Commission entered a written decision and order affirming the appeals examiner's finding that Allen was ineligible for unemployment benefits. The Commission found that:
Claimant quit to avoid the consequences of being placed on a Performance Improvement Plan and risk being discharged if she could not sufficiently improve his [sic] performance. Claimant may have disagreed with the basis for the performance appraisal. However, quitting in response to Employer's attempt to issue that discipline did not constitute good cause for quitting.
The Commission also found that "Adams may have encouraged Allen to take the Severance Agreement, but there is no evidence he prevented Claimant from exercising the other option." The Commission concluded that Allen quit without good cause connected to her employment and was, therefore, ineligible for unemployment benefits. Allen timely appealed.
When this Court reviews a decision of the Industrial Commission concerning eligibility for unemployment benefits, "we exercise free review over questions of law, but review questions of fact only to determine whether the Commission's findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence." Thrall v. St. Luke's Reg'l Med. Ctr. , 157 Idaho 944, 947, 342 P.3d 656, 659 (2015) (quoting ...
To continue reading
Request your trial