Geohaghan v. S.C. Dep't of Emp't & Workforce
| Decision Date | 01 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 5967,Appellate Case 2019-000995 |
| Parties | Amber Geohaghan, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce and South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondents. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Heard April 14, 2022
Appeal From The Administrative Law Court Shirley C. Robinson Administrative Law Judge
Adam Protheroe, of South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center of Columbia, for Appellant.
Eugene Hamilton Matthews, of Richardson Plowden &Robinson, PA of Columbia, for Respondent South Carolina Department of Social Services.
Todd Stuart Timmons and Benjamin Thomas Cook, both of Columbia for Respondent South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce.
Amber Geohaghan appeals the Administrative Law Court's (the ALC's) order affirming the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce's (the Department's) final decision determining Geohaghan was indefinitely ineligible for receipt of unemployment benefits. Geohaghan argues the ALC erred (1) in holding the question of whether she had good cause to resign was a question of fact subject to substantial evidence review and (2) in affirming the Department's finding she resigned without good cause when that finding was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
Geohaghan began working for the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) in March 2013. On or about March 2, 2018 Geohaghan resigned, effective March 16, 2018, and she filed for unemployment benefits on March 9, 2018. In response to the Department's fact-finding questionnaire, Geohaghan stated the reason she gave DSS for resigning was that the "change [would] be beneficial to [her] long-term career goals and objectives." Whereas the reason she gave on the questionnaire for her resignation was an incident that occurred on January 31, 2018, involving verbal threats made to her by a client (the Client). Following a review of her claim, the Department's claims adjudicator found that, effective March 18, 2018, Geohaghan was indefinitely ineligible for unemployment benefits because there were no significant changes to her working conditions and she left her position voluntarily without good cause. Geohaghan appealed this decision to the Department's Appeal Tribunal.
In support of her appeal, Geohaghan provided the Appeal Tribunal with a copy of an email she sent to her Human Resources (HR) liaison, Cynthia Brown, on February 12, 2018, and a letter addressed to the Appeal Tribunal explaining the circumstances of the January 31 incident in more detail. In the email, Geohaghan alleged the Client "verbally attacked" her by calling her a derogatory term and "stupid." She noted a DSS staff member informed her the Client "made a comment about a gun" while being escorted out of the DSS building. Geohaghan indicated she had not had any further contact with the Client since the January 31 incident, but expressed concern for her safety if she were required to conduct future face-to-face visits with the Client at the Client's home. Geohaghan stated she had reason to believe the Client owned a firearm and she believed it was in the best interest of the Client for Brown to assign a new caseworker to the Client's case.
In her letter to the Appeal Tribunal, Geohaghan framed the Client's statement about a gun as a threat directed toward her. Geohaghan stated her direct supervisor, Gwendolyn Breeland, told her "to not follow '[the Client] up'" and that the Client was "all bark no bite." She explained Breeland asked another caseworker to take the Client's case, but the caseworker refused. Geohaghan questioned whether DSS took appropriate action in notifying the agency director and the state office.
The Appeal Tribunal held a telephonic evidentiary hearing on June 8, 2018. During the hearing, Geohaghan maintained the sole reason for her resignation was the January 31 incident. She explained the incident arose out of a contentious family meeting with the Client. According to Geohaghan, when security became involved, the Client called her a "bitch," said she was stupid, and requested a new case manager. As Geohaghan removed herself from the situation, the Client continued to scream loudly and stated, "You better be glad I don't have my gun," which Geohaghan perceived as being directed at her because she was the Client's case manager. Geohaghan's DSS performance coach directed her to remove herself from the situation after the Client made the comment about the gun. Geohaghan explained she was afraid of the Client because the Client had threatened to confront one of her own family members with a gun four days prior. Security informed Geohaghan that the Client would not be allowed on the premises for the time being, but it was unclear to Geohaghan how long the ban would continue. Brown and Breeland were both present for the January 31 incident. Brown told Geohaghan she would notify the DSS county director and the state office, as required under DSS policy, and instructed all of the witnesses to provide a statement.
Geohaghan later discussed the incident with Breeland and raised her concerns about continuing as the Client's case manager, including fears about her safety. She specifically asked Breeland to reassign the Client's case to avoid any contact with the Client on visits; however, the caseworker Breeland approached declined the assignment based on the Client's behavior. Geohaghan reiterated that Breeland and other employees assured her the Client was "all bark, no bite." After discussing her concerns with Brown and Breeland, she did not receive any "feedback" or an update on the matter. Geohaghan was not instructed to interact with the Client but based on the lack of feedback she received, she believed she would still be responsible for conducting home visits with the Client. Geohaghan stated "nothing happened" between February 12 and her resignation and she did not have any contact with the Client after the January 31 incident. She added that she made Brown aware she had not contacted the Client during that time and she
Geohaghan did not contact Brown or HR after her February 12 email to Breeland, nor did she contact state-level HR or the state office. Geohaghan specifically named the individual at the state office she could have contacted and did, in fact, contact in preparation for the hearing. She explained she did not reach out to anyone before resigning because she believed DSS would not take any further action. Geohaghan acknowledged she did not know the process for handling her complaint or the timeframe in which DSS was required to complete its investigation.
When asked what prompted her to resign, Geohaghan responded it was due to the upward trend in gun violence, including an incident that occurred in another DSS county office in 1994, and her concern that DSS was not addressing the January 31 incident. Subsequently, Geohaghan added she resigned because she felt as though Brown had not adequately addressed her concerns about her safety and she had not received any "feedback." Geohaghan stated that had she not resigned, she would still have been employed.
Brown testified the Client used profanity and acted in an "irate" manner during the January 31 incident but she did not hear the Client make a threat about a gun. Brown requested that everyone who witnessed the incident draft a statement for her to provide to the appropriate personnel. After receiving all of the statements in April 2018, Brown contacted DSS's central HR employee relations unit and submitted the statements to the critical response office. Brown testified she followed all the proper protocols in gathering the witness statements but she did not give the time frame in which she was required to notify critical response. She met with the critical response program coordinator, who told her she would handle the matter from that point forward. Brown confirmed that while the investigation was ongoing, the Client would not be allowed on DSS premises and that the Client was eventually served with a notice of no trespassing in April 2018.
When asked what an employee could do in a situation like Geohaghan's, Brown explained an employee could submit an agency complaint, which required the employee to go through their chain of command. Because Breeland was the acting program coordinator, Brown stated Geohaghan should have reached out to the regional administrator, who was the interim county director. Furthermore, Brown stated that if Breeland or the interim county director were unresponsive, Geohaghan should have notified her or directly contacted DSS's central HR employee relations manager or director. When asked how she would have assisted Geohaghan had she notified her prior to her resignation, Brown stated she would have sought guidance from DSS's central employee relations unit. Brown was unaware whether it was normal protocol to require Geohaghan to meet with a client in this situation but as a supervisor, if one of her staff were threatened, then she would not expect them to conduct monthly visits.
Nicole Foulks, the DSS regional director and interim county director, was unable to recall if Geohaghan contacted her about the January 31 incident or her concerns about the alleged inaction by her supervisors. Had Geohaghan contacted her, Foulks explained there were several things she could have done to assist Geohaghan, such as additional training pairing her with another employee to handle the Client's case, or reassignment of the case. She stated the particular course of action would have been determined on a case-by-case basis. When asked whether Geohaghan...
To continue reading
Request your trial