Rufer v. Rauch

• Decision Date: 15 March 2012
• Docket Number: No. SD 31574.,SD 31574.
• Citation: 362 S.W.3d 28
• Parties: Ray Lynn RUFER, Appellant, v. Phil RAUCH, and Missouri Division of Employment Security, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

362 S.W.3d 28

Ray Lynn RUFER, Appellant,
v.
Phil RAUCH, and Missouri Division of Employment Security, Respondents.

No. SD 31574.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

March 15, 2012.

[362 S.W.3d 30]

John J. Ammann, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.

Shelly A. Kintzel, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent Division of Employment Security.

WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., Presiding Judge.

Ray Lynn Rufer (“Rufer”) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) disqualifying her from unemployment benefits because she failed to demonstrate good faith in voluntarily terminating her employment. We affirm the Commission's decision.

Factual and Procedural History

From April 18, 2011, until May 19, 2011, Rufer was employed as an assistant at a transportation business owned and operated by Phil Rauch (“Rauch”) in Billings, Missouri. When Rufer was interviewed for the position, Rauch made it “very clear” that foul language was used in the work environment. Rauch told Rufer: “[Y]ou know, you're working in a trucking atmosphere, you're dealing with drivers and stuff like that. Everything's not sugar coated. It's not like working anywhere else[.]” Rufer responded that she had raised two sons and nothing bothered her. Rauch responded, “[W]ell, okay, I just want to make that very clear to you because that is the way it is around here.”

About a week before Rufer resigned, Rufer came in early to talk to Rauch about her hours. Specifically, Rufer wanted to confirm Rauch would be able to consistently give her forty hours a week. Rauch then also raised the issue of Rufer's relationship

[362 S.W.3d 31]

with her co-workers, L.J. and Jenny. Rauch brought this issue up because he “knew that there was a little bit of hard feelings between a couple of them in the office[.]” Rauch acknowledged that it could be difficult to work with L.J. and Jenny. When Rauch asked Rufer whether it was “rough” working there, Rufer commented that she “[could] handle it,” it was “no big deal,” as she had raised two sons as a single mom.

Rufer acknowledged that Rauch raised this issue, but Rufer explained: “I didn't ever feel free to talk about that to anybody because it was already apparent that [L.J. and Jenny] didn't like the fact ... that I didn't participate in their foul language and their sexual content, so why was I going to go in and tell [Rauch] that[?]”

Rufer testified that her conversation with Rauch “became public knowledge.” Rufer testified that L.J. and Jenny became more hostile towards her after she met with Rauch. Rauch, however, testified that his conversation with Rufer was “a private conversation.” He explained that when the other employees arrived at work, they could see that Rufer and Rauch were speaking and later asked Rauch what it was about. Rauch told them that Rufer “was just asking me about hours. I did not go in to [sic] any other personal stuff, or anything like that.” Rauch testified that “anything else that was said must have been something that somebody made up or hearsay because I don't even talk about hourly wages or anything between any of my employees.”

On May 18, 2011, Rufer arrived to work at 7:50 a.m. L.J.'s car was there, but Rauch's truck was not, which was unusual. Rufer knocked on all the doors and no one answered. It was cold and raining, so Rufer returned to her car, and then eventually went around to the back door, which was unlocked. L.J. was in the office. Rufer testified that L.J. heard her knocking and intentionally did not let her inside. Rufer also testified that Jenny was “in one of her moods” that morning and would not talk to her.

Rauch testified that it was likely L.J. would not have heard anyone knocking on the door, especially as it was raining, and L.J. was on the phone.

Rufer went home for lunch on May 18 and called the unemployment office. Based on her conversation, Rufer believed that she was within the 28–day exception found in section 288.050.1(1) ¹ for leaving a job that was unsuitable.

Rufer decided that although she had done her best to make the job work, she was unhappy, stressed, and worn out from working in such an environment. Therefore, on May 19, 2011, before work, she e-mailed Rauch her resignation stating that the job was “simply not a good fit” for her. Rufer further stated that:

I am not thin skinned and my feeling [sic] are not hurt, it's just that I don't want to feel as if I have to put on boxing gloves everyday [sic] to come to work there. I know that it is more than obvious that the language and content of much of the conversations do not set [sic] well with me and I can not [sic] and will not lower my standards just to try to fit in. I am not preaching at anybody or judging anybody, it's just not for me. I have no ill feelings against anybody in particular, but for the atmosphere as a whole.

When asked at the hearing why she quit, Rufer testified that it was because L.J. and Jenny did not like her and there was cursing and sexual language, which she felt created a “hostile” environment.

[362 S.W.3d 32]

Rufer testified that she did not address the language issue with Rauch because “how am I supposed to change the ... dynamics of a whole family in a working atmosphere that's been in place long before I came along[,]” and “[t]hey already had their dynamics in place ... I can't come in and change that for them. And it wasn't my place[.]”

Rufer filed a claim for unemployment benefits. Rauch protested on the basis that Rufer had “quit without notice.” The Division's deputy determined that Rufer was disqualified from receiving benefits because she did not have good cause for leaving work...