UI Court decision summary -- Fiegel, James v. LIRC & Sanmina, Case 01-CV-877 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Kenosha Co., January 10, 2002) - VL 1007.01 - Discharge, Layoff or Quit? - General - Employee quit where he refused to contact employer which had asked him to contact it after employee stopped going to work following incident with co-worker

Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance

Subject: James M. Fiegel v. LIRC and Sanmina Corporation, Case 01-CV-877 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Kenosha Co., January 10, 2002)

Digest Codes: VL 1007.01

The employee was a third shift production worker for the employer, and on 1/18/01, he had a verbal and physical confrontation with a co-worker. The co-worker advanced towards him with a broom and the employee grabbed the co-worker by the shirt. No blows were exchanged. The employee told his supervisor what had happened and he was told to write down his version of the event. The employee did that and then went home at the end of his shift. Two hours after he got home he received a telephone call from the employer, who told him to come back immediately for a meeting concerning the incident. The employee declined because he wanted to go to bed. The employer agreed to allow the employee to wait until late in the afternoon to come in for the meeting. However, the employee did not come to the meeting nor did he attempt to contact the employer.

On 1/19/01, the employer sent the employee a letter requiring him to contact it by 1/23/01. The employee conceded that he had received this letter by 1/22/01, but he never responded to it, nor did he return to the employer. The employer discharged him on 1/25/01.

The appeal tribunal found that the employee quit his employment, and the commission affirmed. In the appeal to circuit court, the employee asserted that he had good cause for quitting because the employer did not properly investigate and respond to the last incident or to alleged prior incidents of threats from co-workers.

Held: Affirmed. The employee quit his employment. In a terse decision, the court finds the evidence supports the commission's findings and that the employee's arguments are not supported by the evidence.

Summarily reversed by the Court of Appeals, September 18, 2002. [Summary of Court of Appeals decision]

Please note that this is a summary prepared by staff of the commission, not a verbatim reproduction of the court decision.

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