An employee who voluntarily leaves a job “without good cause” is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. New York Labor Law § 593. But what amounts to “good cause”? The case law teaches that that is a fact-specific determination.
In Matter of Labbate, 2016 NY Slip Op 02898 (App. Div. 3d Dept. April 14, 2016), the court considered this issue. There, the Appellate Division upheld an Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determination that the claimant-employee was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her job for “good cause” – specifically, her claim that she was subjected to sexual harassment.
The facts:
In July 2013, claimant, a sales consultant for the employer’s automobile dealership, reported to her employer that a coworker, an automobile mechanic, had allegedly made a lewd gesture to her and, later that day, exposed himself to her. Following an investigation, the employer found the allegations to be unfounded and instructed claimant to stay away from the coworker or go to the service center where he worked, although she was offered a transfer to a nearby building. Dissatisfied with the employer’s response, claimant ended her employment that same day, and she subsequently applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The employer objected, and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately determined that claimant had good cause to leave her employment and was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
In upholding the Board’s determination, the court explained:
Whether a claimant has left employment for good cause so as to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits is a factual issue to be resolved by the Board and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. The Board was free to, and did, credit claimant’s testimony that she did not feel safe or comfortable with continuing her employment after the egregious behavior of her coworker. The record evidence also reflects that claimant had previously reported harassment by another male coworker, who was reprimanded by the employer. In view of this pattern of sexual harassment and the employer’s inadequate offer to transfer claimant to a nearby building — where she would still be forced to interact with the service center — substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant left her employment for good cause. (Emphasis added.)
This decision does not, of course, stand for the proposition that an allegation of sexual harassment automatically results in a finding that the employee had “good cause” for leaving.