Earner v. Phillips

• Decision Date: 05 May 2014
• Docket Number: No. M2013-01180-COA-R3-CV,M2013-01180-COA-R3-CV
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals
• Parties: LENA EARNER v. BURNS PHILLIPS, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, ET AL.

LENA EARNER v. BURNS PHILLIPS, ACTING COMMISSIONER OFTHE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF LABORAND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, ET AL.

No. M2013-01180-COA-R3-CV

COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

March 19, 2014 Session

Filed May 5, 2014

Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Maury County

No. 10-659

Robert L. Holloway, Jr., Judge

This case involves Employee's right to unemployment compensation benefits. The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development denied Employee's claim for unemployment compensation benefits after finding that she voluntarily quit her job based on her belief that she would soon be terminated. Employee appealed that finding in the trial court, where she also contended that she was denied her due process rights of notice and representation during the agency proceedings. The trial court upheld the denial of benefits, finding substantial and material evidence that Employee voluntarily quit her job, and finding that Employee was not denied due process during the agency proceedings. We affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed

and Remanded

DAVID R. FARMER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which HOLLY M. KIRBY, J., and J. STEVEN STAFFORD, J., joined.

David A. Kozolowski, Columbia, Tennessee, for the appellant, Lena Barner.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter, Dereck C. Jumper, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, Burns Phillips, Action Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development.

Charles J. Mataya, Kristi M. Wilcox and John Patrick Rogers, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Seton Corporation, d/b/a Baptist Hospital, Inc.

OPINION

I. BACKGROUND

Lena Barner ("Ms. Barner") was employed by Seton Corporation d/b/a Baptist Hospital (the "Hospital") as a patient care technician from November 2003 until August 13, 2009. On December 8, 2009, Ms. Barner applied for unemployment compensation benefits with the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development (the "Department").¹ The following day, the Department mailed a form to the Hospital requesting information about the circumstances under which the Hospital's employment relationship with Ms. Barner ended. The form provided that "the claimant states he/she was forced to leave work due to a non work related illness or injury." On December 17, 2009, the Department received the completed form back from the Hospital, on which the Hospital indicated that Ms. Barner had not been forced to leave work due to an injury or medical condition, but had been terminated for sleeping on the job.

On December 30, 2009, the Department mailed Ms. Barner its initial Agency Decision denying her claim for benefits. The Agency Decision stated that Ms. Barner had been discharged from her most recent work, and that because she had violated the Hospital's standards by sleeping on the job, she was guilty of "work-related misconduct." The Agency Decision included a paragraph informing Ms. Barner of her right to appeal the decision to the Appeal's Tribunal. The paragraph included the following statement:

You may be represented by an attorney or assisted by any other representative you choose. If you cannot afford an attorney, free or low cost legal assistance may be available through your local legal services organization or bar association. We cannot provide an attorney for you.

On January 11, 2010, Ms. Barner appealed the Agency Decision to the Appeals Tribunal. On February 19, 2010, the Department mailed Ms. Barner a Notice of Telephone Hearing, which stated in pertinent part:

ISSUE(S):

TCA §50-7-303(a)(1) & (2) Whether claimant left work voluntarily without good cause or was discharged for misconduct.

IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS:

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY THE ENCLOSED INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING YOUR APPEALS HEARING.

If you are represented by an attorney, please have the attorney submit a signed Notice of Appearance with the attorney's complete name, address, phone number and your signature.

The telephonic hearing took place on March 2, 2010. During the hearing, the Hospital was represented by its Human Resources Consultant, Camille Calloway, and presented the witness testimony of Ms. Barner's former supervisor, Dana Pansa. Ms. Barner participated in hearing, but was not represented by counsel. During the hearing, Ms. Pansa and Ms. Barner were each allowed to present their account of how Ms. Barner's employment relationship with the Hospital ended. Ms. Pansa testified as follows:

I was doing an investigation from receiving some complaints from supervisory personnel that report to me, regarding the behavior of Lena Barner. I called Lena Barner on eight - I'm sorry, 08/13, 08/13, and asked her if she could come to my office. And she said, "Am I being fired?" And I said, "Lena, I would like for you to come into my office so we can discuss it." She goes, "I quit. She was, "I don't want to be fired. I won't be able to get another job. I quit." And that was the end of the proceedings. I chose - I took a personal action form, which is her file form. I sent it to Camille in Human Resources, and in the part that I wrote in here, in the process of termination for sleeping on the job, she resigned[.]

Ms. Pansa acknowledged that she intended to terminate Ms. Barner for sleeping on the job, but stated that as a matter of personal preference, she would not terminate employees over the phone. Ms. Barner admitted to sleeping on the job, but contended that she was overworked and that she only slept when all of her work was done and she was waiting for her shift to end. Ms. Barner recalled the phone call with Ms. Pansa as follows:

She called me at home. She asked me could I come up there a little early and I said, "Dana," I said, "I'm already in trouble for falling asleep." I said, "I need to, you know, stay at home and go on and get my rest," I said, "before I come up the highway." And I said, "And I'll tell you, Dana," I said, "I worked hard that night," and I told her, I said, "We already done had a tech that was killed going home from working the morning and left four little children that are - are left alone by their father." I said, "She got killed." I said, "And I'll tell you this," I said, "I'd rather nod in front of that computer than to nod on that interstate in front of a tractor-trailer and kill myself and can't make it home." And she said, "Well, I don't know what to tell you." I said, "If theyfeel that way," I said, "I quit." She said, "Well, that's what I was going to have to tell you." She said, you - "You're fired." She said - and I said, well, (Inaudible). She said, I've got to put somebody on the phone and let them tell you - let them tell them. She put somebody on the phone and I told them, I said, "I just told Dana that I quit." Now, that's the honest to God truth.

The Appeals Tribunal released its decision on March 3, 2010. The decision included the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

FINDINGS OF FACT: The claimant's most recent employment prior to filing this claim was with Saint Thomas Health Network as a patient care tech from November 10, 2003 until August 13, 2009. The claimant's supervisor informed the claimant that she had been reported by other staff members for being asleep while on the job. The claimant did state that she dozed off but that it occurred at the end of her shift after her work was finished and it was due in part to exhaustion and in part to some medication that she had been prescribed by her physician. The Clinical Manager contacted the claimant prior to her shift and requested that the claimant meet in the Clinical Manager's office prior to her shift. The claimant asked the Clinical Manager if she intended to terminate the claimant due to the sleeping incident. The Clinical Manager stated that she would not discuss the situation on the telephone and that she wanted the claimant to come to her office prior to starting her shift. The claimant then informed the Clinical Manager that she was quitting her job. The claimant testified that she quit her job because she anticipated that she was to be terminated due to the sleeping incident and she did not want a termination on her work record.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: The Appeals Tribunal holds that the claimant is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. The issue in this case is whether the claimant left her most recent work without good cause connected with the work, as provided in T.C.A. § 50-7-303(a)(1). The Agency Decision is modified to hold that the claimant voluntarily quit her job. The courts have held that "good cause" requires necessitous and compelling circumstances. The standard is one of reasonableness as applied to the average person in the claimant's situation. In order to establish a work-connected reason for resigning, the claimant was required to show that the employer either did something or failed to do anything and the employer's actions are what actually caused her to resign. Furthermore, the claimant was required to prove that she exhausted all reasonable alternatives prior to resigning. The burden of proving that the claimant had a good, work-related reason forresigning rests on the claimant and in this case, the claimant has not met her burden of proof.

The evidence establishes that the claimant voluntarily quit her job because she anticipated that she was about to be terminated by the employer for being found asleep on the job and she did not want a termination on her work record. The claimant quit for personal reasons.

DECISION: The Agency Decision is modified. The claimant is not eligible for unemployment benefits under T.C.A. § 50-7-303(a)(1). The claim is denied as of December 8, 2009, and until the claimant qualifies for benefits in accordance with the Tennessee Employment Security Law.

Following the decision of the Appeals Tribunal, Ms. Barner retained counsel for the first time in the proceedings, and appealed to the Department's Board of Review....