If You Quit Your Job Because the Boss Called You a Liar, Can You
If You Quit Your Job Because the Boss Called You a Liar, Can You Get Unemployment Benefits?
Monica Quick worked at a convenience store. One night she told her supervisor she had injured her back. She was allowed to go the hospital where she was treated and released back to work. When she got a hospital bill she asked the store owner to pay it. However, the owner told her he had heard two versions of how she injured her back from two people, who said she did it before coming to work, rather than while reaching for items on a shelf at work. Owner told Monica he would try to arrange for a State Police polygraph test to see whether she was truthful. Monica then quit and filed for unemployment benefits which were denied.
The Employment Security Board ruled that although a request for a polygraph was prohibited by law, and the owner had failed to file a first report of injury, also a violation of law, these two illegal acts were not the reason Monica quit. She quit voluntarily merely because the owner had challenged her version of how the injury occurred, and so was not entitled to benefits.
Monica appealed to the Supreme Court.Three justices (Reiber, Skoglund and Burgess) agreed with the Board. The Court is required to accept the Board’s finding of fact, they wrote. Neither the polygraph threat, nor the failure to file a first injury report caused Monica to quit. The employer didn’t say she’d be fired if she refused the test. The Board was entitled to determine the facts. It decided Monica quit because she was “offended” by being called a liar, not because the employer threatened to fire her or deny benefits. Being offended is not just cause to quit a job, and not reason to increase the employer’s premiums.
Justices Johnson and Dooley dissented. How, they asked, can laws enacted to protect workers – illegal polygraph requests – requirement to file a first report of injury – and the unemployment compensation system itself- be ignored and turned against the worker. It was wrong to give Monica a “Hobson’s choice” either voluntarily leave a toxic work environment thereby forfeiting compensation, or stay in the toxic environment until she was fired. Illegal threats, even if not carried out, provide good cause to quit they argued. Employers, who have a superior position to an employee, should be required to obey all laws that protect employees. Besides, when Monica looks for a new job, her record will reveal she was fired from the old one because she accused her employer of acting illegally.
The Supreme Court can’t tell who was lying here. Three Justice leave the issue to the Board. The two dissenters say it doesn’t matter. Employers must follow the law. Monica Quick v. Depart of Labor 2009 VT 121.
