Case Information
*1 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
‐‐‐‐ ooOoo ‐‐‐‐
Peter A. Davis, ) MEMORANDUM DECISION
)
Petitioner, ) Case No. )
v. )
) F I L E D Department Workforce Services, ) (June 2012) Appeals Board; First ) Choice Emissions Inspections, )
)
Respondents. )
‐‐‐‐‐
Original Proceeding Court
Attorneys: David Holdsworth, Sandy, Petitioner
Suzan Pixton, City, Respondent Workforce Services
Before Judges Voros, Roth.
VOROS, Judge: Peter A. seeks review Board (the
Board) affirming unemployment insurance benefits section See 35A 405(1)(b) concluded job cause. ruled it deny Davis. first the of is supported by
substantial may grant relief when a petitioner has been substantially prejudiced by an agency action is “based upon a fact, made or implied by the agency, by when viewed in the whole record before the court.” Utah Code § 63G ‐ ‐ 403(4)(g) “Substantial such relevant reasonable mind might accept as adequate support conclusion.” Record 340, omitted). ¶3 Under Utah Employment Security Act, an individual ineligible for “[f]or week in left work voluntarily . . . for each week thereafter until performed services in bona fide, covered employment earned wages for those services equal to at least six times claimant’s weekly benefit amount.” Ann. ‐ ‐ 405(1)(a). Under rules governing Services, a
separation considered voluntary was “moving party in ending the employment relationship.” R994 101(1). This includes failing return work after “a period absence initiated by claimant.” Id. 101(1)(c). “A separation discharge,” however, “if employer was
moving party in determining date employment ended.” ¶4 The determined was moving party ending his employment because he his employer while he was recovering When finally contacted his employer on November he showed up at work ladder, took licenses off wall, collected tools, told manager he could no longer work, left. findings were largely based on testimony employer’s witnesses. challenges these findings pointing testimony witnesses at hearing. He argues wife called employer each day he missed work. argues he November ask leave absence, as getting any better, told him “done around
here.” thus turned After
considering employer’s witnesses be *3 more credible than Davis’s. “It not our role to judge relative credibility of witnesses.” Donated Dental Servs., Inc. v. Servs. , 2011 UT App ¶ 14, P.3d (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “It province Board, not appellate courts, to resolve conflicting evidence, and where inconsistent inferences can be drawn same it to draw inferences.” Id. and omitted). Therefore, “[w]hen disputed, as it here, we defer to Board’s assessment of credibility and resolution evidence.” Wright 2011 ¶ 767. In Board’s determinations, we hold that supports finding that Davis voluntarily quit job. [1] next contends acted arbitrarily and capriciously and abused its discretion finding Davis had not satisfied equity and good conscience standard. “Determining what constitutes equity and good conscience presents mixed question law and fact we defer to so long its decision falls within limits reasonableness rationality.” Id. Even if claimant quits good claimant “may not
be denied eligibility leaves circumstances where it would be to equity good conscience to impose disqualification.” Utah To demonstrate benefits against equity good conscience, must establish both acted reasonably demonstrated continuing attachment labor market. See 103(1)(a)–(b). A acts reasonably where “the decision [is] logical, sensible, or practical.” 103(1)(a). demonstrated logical, sensible, practical. According Board’s findings, discuss options employer does challenge finding lacked cause quit. substantial However, challenge rests same supports Board’s Because defer credibility determinations, Davis’s factual challenge finding fails. seek make arrangement accommodate Rather, Davis
failed then gather belongings. Based facts cannot conclude unreasonable. ¶10 We therefore
____________________________________ Frederic Voros Jr., Judge
¶11 WE CONCUR:
____________________________________
James Z. Judge
____________________________________
Stephen L. Roth, Judge