Board of Educ., Mont. Co. v. Paynter

ORTH, Judge. The General Assembly of Maryland has declared that in its considered judgment the public good, and the general welfare of the citizens of this State require the enactment of [an unemployment insurance law], under the police powers of this State, for the compulsory setting aside of unemployment reserves to be used for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own. Md.Code (1957, 1979 Repl.Vol., 1984 Cum.Supp.) Article 95A, § 2. Milton A. Paynter, a teacher employed by the Board of Education of Montgomery County, thought that the reserves so set aside should be tapped for his benefit because, he believed, he had become unemployed through no fault of his own.

He applied to the Unemployment Insurance Division of the Employment Security Administration, which, as a part of the Department of Human Resources, was then charged with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Law, codified at Art. 95A. (Hereinafter section citations are to Art. 95A unless otherwise noted.) His claim for benefits was referred to a claims examiner who denied it. § 7(c). Paynter was not happy with the examiner’s decision and sought help from the Board of Appeals of the Employment Security Administration. § 7(c)(ii) and (e). The Board referred the matter to a referee.

The referee conducted an evidentiary hearing, made findings and conclusions, and on the basis thereof reversed the determina ²⁷ tion of the examiner, holding that there was to be “no denial of benefits.” § 7(e). The decision of the referee aggrieved Paynter’s former employer, and it sought review by the Board of Appeals. § 7(f). The Board, on the basis of evidence previously submitted before the referee, adopted “the facts and reasoning contained in the decision of the Appeals Referee” and affirmed his decision. Id.

The Board of Education of Montgomery County was by no means satisfied. It secured judicial review of the decision of the Board of Appeals by appeal to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. § 7(h). 1 The court was persuaded by Paynter, who was joined by the Board of Appeals, represented by the Attorney General of Maryland, that within the statutory limitations of its scope of review, it should affirm the decision of the Board of Appeals. Id. The Board of Education of Montgomery County was still not convinced that Paynter was entitled to benefits.

It took an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. Id. We found that review of the case by this Court before the intermediate appellate court had rendered a decision was desirable and in the public interest, and ordered by writ of certiorari that the case be certified to us. We are called upon to determine who was out of step—the examiner or the referee, the Board of Appeals and the circuit court.

This case is governed by § 6(a) of the Unemployment Insurance Law. Its provisions were applied by the examiner, the referee, the Board of Appeals and the circuit court in reaching their respective decisions. We must reach our decision in the light of its dictates. Section 6 concerns “Disqualification for benefits.” It enumerates a number of circumstances under which an individual shall be disqualified completely or partially for benefits.

The first of these circumstances is “Voluntarily leaving work,” and it is dealt with in subsection (a). ²⁸ An individual is disqualified for all benefits if his “unemployment is due to his leaving work voluntarily without good cause.” He is partially disqualified for benefits if his unemployment is due to his leaving work voluntarily because of valid circumstances. The extent of the disqualification depends upon the seriousness of the valid circumstances. Purely personal reasons, no matter how compelling they may be, provide no excuse for voluntarily leaving work. The subsection gives three examples. “Leaving work,” it declares, “to become self-employed, to accompany or join one’s spouse in a new locality, or to attend an educational institution is neither good cause nor a valid circumstance for voluntarily leaving work.” With respect to good cause, [o]nly a cause which is directly attributable to, arising from, or connected with the conditions of employment or actions of the employer may be considered good cause.

With respect to a valid circumstance, [o]nly a substantial cause which is directly attributable to, arising from, or connected with the conditions of employment or actions of the employer, or another cause of such necessitous or compelling nature that the individual had no reasonable alternative other than to leave the employment may be considered a valid circumstance. Other than these guidelines as to what good cause and valid circumstance must be and may not be, the legislature left the determination of what amounts to both good cause and valid circumstance in the hands of the administrative agency charged by it to administer the Unemployment Insurance Law. That the legislature was relying on the expertise of the agency in this regard is clearly evident from the language of subsection (a) “[i]f the Executive Director finds that the individual’s unemployment is due to his leaving work voluntarily without good cause,” and “according to the seriousness of valid circumstances as determined in each case by the Executive Director____” (Emphasis supplied). ²⁹ To ascertain and effectuate the actual legislative intention in enacting any statute is, of course, the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation. In this regard, the primary source of legislative intent is the language of the statute itself.

Where the statutory provisions are unambiguous, no construction is required, so that a plainly worded statute must be construed without forced or subtle interpretations designed to extend or limit the scope of its operation. State v. Intercontinental, Ltd., 302 Md. 132, 137 , 486 A.2d 174 (1985) (citations omitted). The provisions of § 6(a) are unambiguous and we need not go behind what the statute plainly says on its face to ascertain the legislative intent. The Board of Education would have the “necessitous or compelling” provision related in the statute to valid circumstance apply equally to good cause.

To do otherwise, it states, would result in a more onerous standard for the payment of limited benefits than for the payment of full benefits. This, it suggests, would be absurd in light of the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Law and the policy regarding it announced by the legislature. See § 2. The invalidity of the argument of the Board of Education is readily apparent on the face of the statute.

Neither good cause nor valid circumstance may be predicated upon a purely personal reason. But, although the statute commands that good cause be job-related, it recognizes a cause in addition to one that is job-related with respect to a valid circumstance. It is this alternative cause provided with respect to valid circumstance, and not applicable to good cause, which must meet the “necessitous or compelling” test. Provision for the additional cause as to valid circumstance is clearly spelled out in the statute when it prescribes: Only a substantial cause which is directly attributable to, arising from, or connected with the conditions of employment or actions of the employer, or another cause of such necessitous or compelling nature that the individual had no reasonable alternative other than to leave the ³⁰ employment may be considered a valid circumstance.

(Emphasis supplied). The obvious rationale for the strict test required as to this alternative non-job-related cause is that if the employer must contribute to the payment of benefits arising from a cause not connected with the claimant’s employment or the employer’s actions, that cause should have a higher standard of proof. It is perfectly plain from the statutory language that the legislature did not intend that the necessitous or compelling requirement apply to good cause. As we have indicated, the decision at each level of appeal was based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing conducted by the referee and his factual findings thereon.

Indeed, the evidence stands undisputed and unrefuted. It consists in major part of the testimony of Paynter, testifying in his own behalf and of the testimony of John Joseph Dalton, assistant principal of Wheaton High School, called by the Board of Education. We give a compendium of their testimony. Paynter was a full-time teacher of Spanish with the Montgomery County School System from 31 August 1981 to 30 November 1982 when his resignation became effective.

The first year of his employment was spent at White Oak Junior High School and Springbrook High School. The difficulties which led to his resignation occurred during his three months at Wheaton High School. He explained why he resigned: I left primarily because I was being harassed on a daily basis. I was threatened and I felt that I wasn’t really receiving the type of aid that I felt I deserved from the administration to deal with the problem.

Apparently the seed of the harassment was planted while Paynter was at Springbrook when a student named Allen Studivan started a fight with Paynter. On Paynter’s second day at Wheaton he came upon Studivan with a group of students. Studivan saw Paynter and said something to his ³¹ companions who started laughing. Paynter heard them refer to him as a “faggot” or a “fag.” Thereafter I would hear these sort of references, faggot, mother fucker, this sort of thing, on a daily basis when I walked down the hall, when I go through the cafeteria, when I go to the bathroom, they would also, this group of guys, which is about 12-15 of them, they would come by my classroom and yell “faggot” inside my class.

They opened up my door when I was teaching, slammed the door, they would bang on my door and the window, the glass windows of the class when I would be teaching. One point they posted a dirty picture on the window of my class, Dr. Dalton saw that. There were a few other incidents here and there, but you know they are so numerous that I can’t really recall all of them, all of them. This harassment occurred on a daily basis, sometimes once a day, “sometimes it was several times [a day], several different incidents.” For about two weeks Paynter tried to ignore the harassment. “I thought it was just something that the students were doing because I was a new teacher at the school____ I thought it ... was just a little prank-type deal that they were doing, and it would die out, but after I saw ... that it was a continuous thing, and would continue, that’s when I sought the help of the administration.” He reported to Dalton the name of a boy who walked by his door and yelled “faggot.” Dalton suspended the boy for a day.

Paynter later talked to the principal of the school who told him that unless he could “absolutely, positively, identify who had said what to [him], where, and on what particular occasion, there wasn’t much that he could do.” Paynter observed that “[unfortunately, generally when these incidents occurred, the people who were doing them were in groups of four and five or larger, none of whom were my students, and I didn’t even know their names----” To Paynter’s knowledge the principal did not conduct an investigation on his own; he never saw the principal any ³² where in the vicinity of his classroom door. The principal told Payntér that he had “walked in the corridor around the corner from [Paynter’s] classroom where the kids would hang out at lunch time and start their little antics” but “he never saw them or heard them issuing any kind of remarks or doing any kind of thing to harass [Paynter].” Paynter testified to only one incident concerning a threat. He told his “favorite class,” one in which he had “very good rapport” with the students, that he planned to leave because he was having “some problems with students.” After school the next day, one of the students, Anita Williams, said to him that “these guys that have been harassing you, they told me that they better not find out when your last day is, that is working at the school____” Miss Williams did not know what they planned to do. The harassment and haranguing affected Paynter.

He said: I tended to be very nervous and uptight all the time, and dreaded coming to work in the morning. I also spent several nights without sleep, I couldn’t get to sleep because of nerves; many times I couldn’t eat all day because of the nervousness, upset stomach____ Paynter submitted his resignation on 20 October 1982, effective 30 November, giving notice as called for by the rules. “I figured, you know, to keep the school from being in the lurch or whatever, I would stick it out for the full 30 days.” Several teachers and some students tried to convince him to change his mind, and, in fact, persuaded him to the extent that he went to the principal to take back his letter of resignation, but the principal said that it was too late and there was nothing he could do. On cross-examination it was elicited that Paynter had not consulted a physician as a result of his reactions to the harassment nor had he talked to any of the students who may have been involved. Upon inquiry by the referee, Paynter said that he had discussed the matter with both the principal and assistant principal several times.

Dalton told Paynter that he was talking to the students and would try to watch and see ³³ what was going on. Asked whether he thought that Dalton was trying to correct the situation to the best of his ability, Paynter said, “I felt that he was trying somewhat, but not necessarily to the best of his ability, no.” The efforts were “minimal ... and quite insufficient.” Paynter did not suggest a course of action. He was a new teacher and did not know what to do. The harassment continued.

Dalton had no doubt that Paynter had accurately described what had taken place. The referee asked Dalton if he believed that the events were occurring as Paynter indicated or whether Dalton had any reason to disbelieve Paynter. Dalton replied: No, none whatsoever. I’m sure they were.

I was not aware of the frequency and the extent until ... he was already getting ready to leave. I certainly believe this happened; in one case I suspended the boy for doing it. So something was going on for sure. But, Dalton explained, “I have to know exactly who did what, and have proof; to see it or have somebody else witness it.

Like for instance, the verbal abuse, I didn’t witness it. Mr. Paynter did and that was enough, but a voice out of a group, no way.” Dalton testified that Paynter had talked to him “early on” about Studivan. Dalton then talked to Studivan and told him to leave Paynter alone. Studivan’s name was not thereafter mentioned by Paynter.

Dalton also talked to two other students he had observed yelling in the door, and to their parents and, to the best of Dalton’s knowledge, they were not involved again. The School System employs Safety Security Assistants who monitor the halls to make sure the students get into classes on time and to discourage unauthorized visitors. Dalton asked the guards to spend extra time around Paynter’s classroom door. He himself went to the vicinity of the classroom several times but his personal attention to the Paynter problem was limited by his other responsibilities.

At the time Paynter resigned, the school authorities had no plans for discontinuing his employment. ³⁴ The referee’s findings of fact are in substantial accord with the evidence adduced before him. They led to the following conclusions: The evidence reveals that the employer did try to take corrective measures to