STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)

MARGARET A MENTEL, Employee

CRISPELL SYNDER INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 06606191RC


An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The employee worked for about 11 years as the personnel manager for the employer, a civil engineering firm. The employee's last day of work was on August 25, 2006 (week 34), when she quit.

The issue to be decided is whether the employee's quitting was for any reason that would permit the immediate payment of unemployment benefits.

The employer's owners decided to discharge a woman who was the employer's marketing coordinator and was over 40 years old. The employer's chief executive officer asked the employee in her capacity as a human resources manager to inform the marketing coordinator of her discharge.

The employee repeatedly refused to carry out the discharge because she felt that the company mangers had not sufficiently documented the marketing coordinator's shortcomings. The employee was afraid that the marketing coordinator might file an age discrimination complaint against the employer.

The employee argued that she quit with good cause attributable to the employer. The commission agrees. The employee was reasonably concerned about the employer's potential liability and did not want to engage in any potentially illegal or wrongful behavior. She explained her concerns to the employer's owner, but he told the employee she should discharge the marketing coordinator and he would take responsibility for a lawsuit. The employee reasonably believed that discharging the marketing coordinator would be a violation of the law. The employer did not explain its position or why it believed that this discharge would not have been a violation of the law. Further, the employer could simply have had someone else discharge the co-worker. The employer's actions in failing to take any steps to reassure the employee, given the particular circumstances in this case, amounted to good cause attributable to the employer for quitting.

The commission therefore finds that in week 34 of 2006, the employee quit her job with the employer with good cause attributable to the employer, within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(b).

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is reversed. Accordingly, the employee is eligible for benefits beginning in week 34 of 2006, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed March 28, 2007
mentama . urr : 145 : 1  VL 1005.01 VL 1080.12

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The commission did not discuss witness credibility and demeanor with the ALJ who held the hearing. The commission did not reverse the ALJ based on a different impression of witness credibility and demeanor but rather, reversed because it reached a different legal conclusion from the facts found by the ALJ.


[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]


uploaded 2007/03/30