The opinion
STATE OF MAINE
Androscoggin, ss.
CARLTON C. AMES,
Appellant
v.
MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE COMMISSION,
Respondent
SUPERIOR COURT
Civil Action
Docket No. AP-01-21
TOD bade
DECISION AND ORDER
DONALD L. GARBRECHT
LAW LIBRARY
MAL o*
The Appellant was employed by Oxford Aviation, Inc. as a certified
aircraft mechanic. While working on an aircraft two co-workers entered the hangar
on the opposite side of the aircraft. Ames could not see them and heard one of
them (Rick Brown) making noises that Ames believed mimicked his speech. Ames
asked, “why are you monkeying me?” or “are you mocking me, you monkey?, or a
similarly worded question. Brown, an African-American, took offense to the use of
the word “monkey,” believing it to be a racial slur. There were profanity-laced
verbal taunts hurled by and at each other and a pushing-shoving match that was
broken up by a third person.
Ames claims that Brown punched him several times in the body and face.
The Commission found, and the court agrees, that the video tape submitted by
Ames does not support his claim of evidence of injury to the facial area, although it
does show a cut on his arm apparently caused by a tool that Ames was holding
when the fight broke out.
Ames left work and reported the incident to a supervisor. Both employees
were suspended for a week without pay; Brown for his attack on Ames, and Ames
for his remarks that were considered as provocation.
Ames did not return to work after the suspension believing that it would be
unsafe to continue to work with Brown. Oxford Aviation stated that arrangements
could have been made to keep Ames and Brown separated.
Ames’ application for unemployment compensation was initially approved
upon the finding that he quit his job for good cause. An appeal by Oxford Aviation
resulted in the same decision from an Administrative Hearing Officer; however, an
appeal to the Commission resulted in a finding that Ames left his employment
voluntarily without good cause. Ames’ request for reconsideration was denied and
he has brought this appeal.
This court’s review of the Commission’s decision is limited to determining
whether the Commission correctly applied the law and whether its fact findings are
supported by the evidence. McPherson v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 1998 ME
177, 714 A.2d 818 (The court “will not disturb a decision of the Commission unless
the record before the Commission compels a contrary result.”). Id. at ] 6, 714 A.2d
820.
In reviewing an agency decision, the issue before the court is not whether the
court would have reached the same conclusion, “but whether the record contains
competent and substantial evidence that supports the result reached.” CWCO, Inc.
v. Superintendent of Ins., 703 A.2d 1258, 1261 (Me. 1967).
Good cause to leave one’s employment “exists when the pressure of real,
substantial and reasonable circumstances compels the employee to leave. The
employee must be forced to quit because of outward pressures.” Henry v. Maine
Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 518 A.2d 1046, 1049. Good cause must be measured
against an objective standard of reasonableness under all of the circumstances.” Id.
In this case, the Commission found that Ames did not have good cause to
leave his employment. The Commission’s conclusions are adequately supported by
substantial evidence in the record—including the fact that all of the witnesses to the
incident between Ames and Brown recalled a shoving match, not the physical
beating claimed by Ames. Furthermore, while it appears that the employer could
not guarantee that Ames and Brown would never come into contact at all in the
future, it is evident that the two employees had very different responsibilities, that
the employer would act to keep them separated and that work-necessitated contact
between the two would be rare. (See R. p. 234-37).
The court finds that the record supports the Commission’s determination
that Ames left his employment without good cause. “Good cause” is measured by
an objective standard. Spear v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 505 A.2d 82, 84
(Me. 1986).
The Commission did not commit an error of law.
The clerk will make the following entry as the Decision and Order on Appeal: __
On appeal, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance
Commission is affirmed.
So Ordered.
DATED: May 13, 2002
Thomas B, Delahanty I ~~
Justice, Superior Court
Date Filed December 17, 2001 _ANDROSCOGGIN Docket No. AP-01-21
County
Action _80C APPEAL - UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CARLTON T. AMES
250 E. Hardscrabble Road
Auburn, ME 04210
vs.
Plaintiff’s Attorney Defendant’s Attorney
Elizabeth J. Wyman, AAG. BAR NO. 7772 Pro Se
Pamela W. Waite, AAG BAR NO. 2448
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
6 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0006
Date of
Entry
2001
Dec. 27: Received 12-17-01. .
Summary Sheet; filed. (No filing fee required.)
Petition for Review of Final Agency Action, Pursuant to Rule 80 C, with
attachments, filed.
2002
Jan. 3: Received 1-3-02.
Appearance of Oxford Aviation, Inc. and Response to Petition in Support of
Affirmance of Agency Action, filed.
Gregory R. Smith, Esq. appears on behalf of Employer Oxford Aviation, Inc.
Jan. 8: Received 1-7-01. :
Correspondence from Elizabeth J. Wyman, Esq. and Pamela W. Waite, Esq. RE:
Entries of Appearance on behalf of Maine Employment Insurance Commission, fil
Jan. 18: Received 1-18-02.
Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargment of Time to Serve the Administrative Record,
filed.
Jan. 22: |Received 1-22-02.
Order, filed. (Delahanty, II, J.)
It is hereby ordered, upon Motion of the Respondent and without objection
by the Petitioner, that the deadline for serving the administrative
record is enlarged to January 31, 2002.
copies mailed Elizabeth J. Wyman, AAg and Carlton T. Ames on 1-22-02.
Jan. 31: Received 1-31-02.
Administrative Record (Tape of Carlton T. Ames), filed.
On 1-31-02.
Notice and Briefing Schedule, 80C Appeal of Final Agency Actions mailed
Carlton T. Ames, Elizabeth J. Wyman, AAG and Pamela W. Waite, AAG on 1-31-02.
(Copy in file) Appellant's Brief due on or before March 12, 2002.