Uzochukwu J. Nwokwu v. Allied Barton Security, 171 A.3d 576

Background

Petitioner Uzochukwu Nwokwu worked for Allied Barton and was removed from an FDIC contract assignment on August 7, 2013 after a supervisor reported he was sleeping on post. Allied Barton told him to contact HR for reassignment.
Allied Barton initially told DOES the removal was a discharge for misconduct, but before OAH advanced a different theory: that Nwokwu voluntarily quit by failing to timely contact HR for a new assignment.
Allied Barton produced limited documentary evidence: a disciplinary/counseling statement (unsigned by Nwokwu), a supervisor’s testimony that employees should contact HR (a purported three-day rule of thumb not in the handbook), and a January 2014 Change of Status form labeling the separation as "job abandonment."
Nwokwu testified he went to Allied Barton’s office soon after removal, was rebuffed and physically pushed out, repeatedly called and emailed HR, spoke with HR in October 2013, was placed on a two-week assignment in December 2013, and continued post-January 2014 communications with HR concerning licensing and assignments. No written notice of termination was shown to have been given to him.
The OAH ALJ denied benefits, concluding Nwokwu voluntarily quit because he failed to contact HR for two months and thus breached a duty to preserve employment.
The D.C. Court of Appeals reversed, holding Allied Barton failed to prove an affirmative voluntary act by Nwokwu to end the employment relationship and remanded with directions to award benefits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nwokwu "voluntarily quit" under D.C. law	Nwokwu: presumption of involuntary leaving applies; Allied Barton must prove an affirmative act of quitting	Allied Barton: failure to timely contact HR (two months) shows breach of duty to preserve employment and supports voluntary quit	Court: Mere suspension of contact is insufficient; employer must prove an affirmative act or comparable conduct; held for Nwokwu
Whether employer may rely on failure to perform/maintain contact as voluntary quit	Nwokwu: failure to perform is misconduct, not an affirmative quit; staffing/third-party assignment context increases employer’s burden	Allied Barton: noncontact and abandonment justify voluntary-quit finding	Court: Failure to maintain contact without more does not establish voluntary quit; misconduct theory was not pursued at OAH and lacked proof
Whether Freeman allows deeming noncontact a voluntary quit	Nwokwu: Freeman does not eliminate requirement of an affirmative change in status	Allied Barton: Freeman permits finding that failing to take reasonable steps to preserve employment constitutes voluntary quit	Court: Freeman limited to cases where employee affirmatively changed status; does not authorize deeming silence/noncontact alone a quit
Whether remand to ALJ required for additional factual findings	Nwokwu: record as whole shows continued employer contact and post-October work; no need to remand	Allied Barton: factual ambiguities warrant further findings	Court: Declined remand — no reasonable factfinder could conclude voluntary quit based on record; reversed and directed award of benefits

Key Cases Cited

Freeman v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 568 A.2d 1091 (D.C. 1990) (employee who affirmatively changed status to on-call was deemed to have voluntarily caused unemployment)
Cruz v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 633 A.2d 66 (D.C. 1993) (unemployment statute is remedial and must be liberally construed in favor of benefits)
Taylor v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 741 A.2d 1048 (D.C. 1999) (failure to perform job duties is analyzed as misconduct, not automatic voluntary quit)
Doyle v. NAI Pers. Inc., 991 A.2d 1181 (D.C. 2010) (skepticism that mere failure to notify staffing agency of assignment end supports voluntary quit)
Berkley v. D.C. Transit, Inc., 950 A.2d 749 (D.C. 2008) (presumption that employee departure is involuntary unless employer proves otherwise)