Text Message “I Will Not Continue to Make Myself Available” as a Voluntary Quit; Single Customer-Caused Shift Cancellation Not “Good Cause” for Unemployment Benefits

Precedents Cited

1) Allen v. Dep't of Emp. & Training, 159 Vt. 286 (1992)

The Court relied on Allen for the two-part framework for “good cause” under Vermont unemployment law: the claimant must show (1) a sufficient reason to justify quitting and (2) that the reason is attributable to the employing unit. This framing mattered because the claimant’s central grievance was loss of income from a canceled shift; the Court treated the causal source (customer cancellation) as critical to attributability.

2) Skudlarek v. Dep't of Emp. & Training, 160 Vt. 277 (1993)

Skudlarek supplied two controlling review principles: (a) the claimant bears the burden of proving good cause, and (b) the Court will not disturb factual findings supported by credible evidence. These principles underpinned the affirmance because the claimant asked the Court to reject the Board’s view of the text message and employer testimony—an invitation the Court declined under deferential review.

3) Isabelle v. Dep't of Emp. & Training, 150 Vt. 458 (1988)

Isabelle was cited for the proposition that good-cause determinations apply a reasonableness standard. The Court used this to evaluate whether a reasonable worker would quit based on a single shift cancellation with advance notice due to a customer’s cancellation. The Court concluded the Board acted within that reasonableness framework in finding no good cause.

4) Pratt v. Pallito, 2017 VT 22, 204 Vt. 313

Pratt was used to enforce preservation requirements: arguments must be raised with specificity and clarity before the agency. This precedent directly controlled the claimant’s late-raised appellate objections to the text message as unauthenticated or hearsay. Because she did not make those objections at the ALJ stage, the Court declined to address them and denied motions to strike.

5) Harrington v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 142 Vt. 340 (1982)

The Court invoked Harrington for two related points: the Board is best positioned to judge credibility, and on appeal the record is construed in the manner most favorable to the Board’s conclusions. This was decisive against the claimant’s assertion that the employer lied or that additional shifts were canceled; those contentions sought reweighing of evidence, which Harrington discourages.

6) In re Grismore, 2024 VT 70

In re Grismore supplied the due-process baseline: parties are entitled to a fair hearing before an unbiased decisionmaker, and decisionmakers are presumed honest and impartial unless the challenger overcomes that presumption. Applying that standard, the Court found the hearing process fair—particularly given the Board’s remand specifically designed to cure the claimant’s complaint that text messages were missing from the record.

Legal Reasoning

1) Voluntary quit as a factual finding supported by the text message

The Board treated the January 27 text—“So if that is the way you want to do things, I will not continue to make myself available to work with you.”—as a clear expression that the claimant would no longer offer her services. Coupled with the employer’s testimony that this was the last communication, the ALJ and Board inferred a voluntary separation initiated by the claimant, not a discharge or temporary lack of hours.

The Supreme Court framed its task as reviewing whether “credible evidence” supported that finding and concluded it did. The Court also emphasized that the claimant’s appellate challenges to the text message (authentication/hearsay) were not preserved, meaning the evidentiary foundation for the Board’s reliance on the text was not open for appellate re-litigation.

2) “Good cause attributable to the employer” rejected because the trigger was customer cancellation

Under 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a)(2)(A), a claimant who voluntarily leaves work is disqualified unless the quit is for good cause attributable to the employer. The ALJ found—and the Board adopted—that the canceled Saturday event shift was caused by the guests canceling their reservation, and the employer promptly notified the claimant three days in advance. Even if the claimant was understandably upset, the Court held the Board reasonably concluded that one customer-caused cancellation did not supply good cause attributable to the employer.

3) Limits on issues and evidence on appeal

The Court declined to consider theories not preserved below, specifically “constructive discharge” and “violation of an implied contract,” noting they were beyond the scope of the proceeding. It also denied repeated motions to supplement the record, emphasizing that agency appeals are confined to the record before the Board, referencing 3 V.S.A. § 809(e) and V.R.A.P. 13(b).

4) Due process and hearing management

The Court rejected claims that the claimant was denied a fair hearing. The record showed: an ALJ hearing with both parties; a Board appeal; a Board remand granting an explicit opportunity to submit texts from the relevant period; two opportunities to provide remand material; and a second Board hearing. The claimant’s removal from the Board hearing occurred after repeated warnings about interrupting during the employer’s allotted time, and the transcript did not substantiate bias. Under In re Grismore, these facts did not overcome the presumption of decisionmaker impartiality.

5) Overpayment consequence tied to separation non-reporting

Although the Entry Order does not elaborate a separate doctrinal test for overpayment, it affirms the agency’s finding that after separation the claimant failed to notify the Department and thereby received benefits to which she was not entitled, supporting liability for overpaid benefits.

Impact

• Workplace communications can constitute a quit: The decision reinforces that an employee’s written statement to an employer that she will no longer make herself available can be treated as a voluntary quit, particularly if followed by no further outreach.
• Attributability is the fulcrum: Even where a worker’s income disruption is real, the case underscores that “good cause” turns on whether the precipitating reason is attributable to the employer—not merely whether quitting felt justified.
• Preservation matters in unemployment proceedings: Parties must raise evidentiary objections (e.g., hearsay/authentication) at the ALJ stage; otherwise, appellate courts may refuse to consider them.
• Appellate record is closed: The Court’s reliance on 3 V.S.A. § 809(e) and V.R.A.P. 13(b) reiterates that supplementation on appeal is generally unavailable; the proper time to build the record is before the agency, including on remand when offered.
• Due-process challenges require record support: Allegations of bias or unfairness must overcome the presumption of impartiality and be supported by the transcript and procedural history; hearing management (including removing a disruptive participant after warnings) will not alone establish bias.

Note on precedential weight: The document is an “Entry Order,” and the header states that decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. Even so, the reasoning is informative for litigants and agencies applying the cited standards.