Department of Economic and Employment Development v. Taylor2/8/1996
a voluntary antecedent act that eventually results in discharge. Instead, the issue of whether an employee has "voluntarily left work" within the meaning of L.E. § 8-1001(a)(1) hinges on the employee's intent.
We conclude that it is a necessary element of "voluntarily leaving work" that the employee have the intent to terminate the employment relationship voluntarily. Swanson v. State, 114 Idaho 607, 759 P.2d 898, 900 (Idaho 1988); Coates v. Bingham Mechanical & Metal Products, Inc., 96 Idaho 606, 533 P.2d 595, 597 (Idaho 1975). See Gaspro, Limited v. Commission of Labor and Indus. Relations, 46 Haw. 164, 377 P.2d 932, 936 (Haw. 1962) (leaving work voluntarily means "the volitional severance of the employment relation by a worker"); Kitchen v. G.R. Herberger's, Inc., 262 Minn. 135, 114 N.W.2d 64, 67 (Minn. 1962) (voluntary unemployment requires "some act of the employee acquiescing in the unemployment" [quotation omitted]). Thus, in order to establish that a claimant voluntarily left work within the meaning of L.E. § 8-1001(a)(1), it must be shown that the employee intentionally, purposely, or by his or her own choice or will, terminated the employment or, based on the Allen Court's dictum, that the employee committed an act that the employee "knowingly intended" to cause a discharge. Thus, it is the claimant's intent to become unemployed that is critical, and not the claimant's intent to commit a particular act that culminates in discharge. This differs markedly from the doctrine of "constructive voluntary leaving," which, as we observed earlier, is a precisely-defined concept, with respect to which the claimant's intent to leave employment is irrelevant. 108 Md. 250, 263-264.
We recognize, however, that an employee 's conduct, both verbal and non-verbal, may, under some circumstances, constitute a voluntary quit, even if the employee does not expressly terminate the employment. Thus, it is not necessary for the employee actually to say, "I quit," or words to that effect, in order to be deemed to have voluntarily left work. What is critical, however, is that the employee's conduct must demonstrate the intent to quit voluntarily. Therefore, if an employee is to be deemed to have voluntarily left work based on his or her non-verbal conduct, it must be established that the employee engaged in the conduct with the intent to terminate the employment relationship.
A claimant's intent or "state of mind is a factual issue for the Board to resolve." Dep't. of Economic and Employment Develop. v. Hager, 96 Md. App. 362, 371, 625 A.2d 342 (1993). We acknowledge, of course, that one's intent cannot be proven directly. Id. Rather, "the matter is determined by drawing reasonable inferences from admitted conduct." Id. In Hager, the employee 's "adamant refusal to accept a [shift] reassignment," 96 Md. App. at 371, without adequate explanation, culminated in his termination. Based on the facts and inferences drawn from the facts, we upheld the Board's conclusion that the claimant's conduct was deliberate and willful, and thus constituted gross misconduct within the meaning of L.E. 8-1002(a).
In this case, however, the Board did not make any findings concerning appellee's intent to terminate employment. Rather, the Board, in adopting the hearing examiner's findings, determined only that the claimant "knew or should have known" that an accumulation of points would constitute a violation of the employer 's rules and " could " result in the discharge. That the employee could be fired does not mean that she would be fired. Indeed, the hearing examiner found that the employee was permitted to work for one year following her alcohol-related driving offense.
The case of Marylan
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|