Teresa L. Sladek v. Employment Appeal Board and Kelly Services USA LLC ( 2020 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 18–0981
Filed February 21, 2020
TERESA L. SLADEK,
Appellant,
vs.
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL BOARD and
KELLY SERVICES USA LLC,
Appellees.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Chad A.
Kepros, Judge.
A temporary employee appeals from an order denying her petition to
review a ruling of the employment appeal board that she voluntarily quit
her position with a temporary employment firm and was not entitled to
unemployment insurance benefits. AFFIRMED.
John S. Allen, Clinical Law Professor, University of Iowa College of
Law, Iowa City, and Majed Alzben, Law Student, for appellant.
Rick Autry, Des Moines, for appellee Employment Appeal Board.
2
MANSFIELD, Justice.
I. Introduction.
This is an administrative appeal challenging a final agency action of
the Employment Appeal Board (EAB) denying unemployment benefits.
The EAB determined the claimant, a temporary employee, voluntarily quit
her employment with a temporary employment agency without good cause
attributable to the employer. The district court upheld the EAB’s action,
and the court of appeals affirmed. This case now comes to us on further
review.
Here, the temporary agency informed the temporary employee by
phone that the workplace where she had been assigned was dissatisfied
with her work performance and was ending her assignment. The employee
hung up the phone. The employee did not attempt to resume contact with
the temporary agency for almost five weeks—after she had already applied
for unemployment benefits and the temporary agency had contested them.
Under these circumstances, the EAB denied benefits.
We conclude substantial evidence supports the EAB’s determination
that the employee voluntarily quit. We also hold that substantial evidence
supports the EAB’s finding that the employee does not meet the safe
harbor in Iowa Code section 96.5(1)(j)(1), which relates specifically to
temporary employees of temporary employment firms. Under that
provision, an individual is not disqualified from benefits if “[t]he individual
is a temporary employee of a temporary employment firm who notifies the
temporary employment firm of completion of an employment assignment
and who seeks reassignment.” Iowa Code § 96.5(1)(j)(1) (2018). The
employee did not seek reassignment in a timely fashion; instead, she hung
up the phone. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court
and the decision of the court of appeals.
3
II. Facts and Procedural Background.
Teresa Sladek, the petitioner, applied to work at Kelly Services USA,
LLC, a temporary employment firm, on December 15, 2015. As a part of
the application process, Sladek signed an agreement that included an
“Assignment Information and Employment Termination Policy,” which
stated,
Within 48 hours of completion of each assignment, I will
notify Kelly of my availability for work. I understand I am
responsible for maintaining weekly contact with Kelly; failure
to contact Kelly may affect my eligibility for unemployment
benefits. I understand that once 14 days have passed after
my last day worked, my employment with Kelly will be
terminated—unless I have been placed on another assignment
or qualified leave of absence, or if I am on certain customer-
specific assignments. I understand that this does not alter
the at-will nature of my employment, my employment may still
be terminated at any time, and the terms and conditions of
my employment may be changed without notice. I also
understand that I may be eligible for reemployment.
Kelly may offer me assignments for varying lengths of
time—I retain the right to reject any offer of assignment.
When an assignment ends, Kelly will attempt to place me on
another assignment, however there will typically be periods
during which no offer of assignment of employment is made.
On December 22, Sladek signed an additional document entitled,
“NOTIFICATION OF POSITION END: IOWA,” which stated,
To qualify for unemployment benefits, you must be
unemployed through no fault of your own and be actively
seeking work. “Actively seeking work” is defined as taking
reasonable efforts to return to the workforce.
Iowa Code Section 96.5-1-j requires that upon
completion of an assignment with a temporary employment
firm, the temporary employee must contact the firm within
three business days to seek reassignment or face
disqualification for benefits pursuant to the section listed
above. Failure to contact Kelly Services (“Kelly”) will indicate
that you have either:
• Voluntarily quit; and/or
• Are not actively seeking work
4
This may affect your eligibility for unemployment
benefits.
I have read the above information and understand
that failure to contact Kelly within three business days of
completing an assignment may affect my eligibility for
unemployment benefits. I also acknowledge receiving a
copy of this document.
Later, Sladek acknowledged receipt of these policies in her hearing
testimony.
Sladek began employment with Kelly as a temporary employee on
January 5, 2016. She was assigned to R. R. Donnelley for her first of three
jobs. This assignment lasted for approximately three weeks before R. R.
Donnelley determined that Sladek was not a good fit for the post. Sladek
received the news through her supervisor at Kelly. At that time, Sladek
did not explicitly ask Kelly for reassignment. When her first assignment
ended, Sladek applied for and received unemployment benefits.
Sladek’s second assignment began March 2 with ACT, the testing
organization. She worked as a document processor until May 22 when her
assignment ended because there was no more work to be done. Again,
Sladek did not explicitly ask for reassignment. When this second
assignment ended, Sladek once more applied for and received
unemployment benefits.
Sladek’s third and final assignment through Kelly was also at ACT
but as a customer service representative rather than a document
processor. She began this assignment on July 11 and continued in this
role until June 28, 2017.
While working as a customer service representative at ACT, Sladek
struggled to keep her “handle time” down. Handle time is the amount of
time a service representative remains on a phone call with a customer.
ACT’s goal was to keep the phone call to between five and six minutes in
5
duration, and this was measured by an average at the end of the month.
Sladek’s averages were often at least twice the target length, and she was
aware that this was problematic. She expressed to her contact person at
Kelly, Staci Payne, concerns that she might lose the assignment due to her
inadequate handle times.
Payne was a Kelly senior account talent manager who worked
exclusively on the ACT account out of the ACT campus. Payne had
multiple conversations with Sladek about Sladek’s problems in processing
calls efficiently. She testified that ACT even moved Sladek’s desk next to
that of a supervisor to better help her and that supervisors reviewed
Sladek’s calls. These efforts were to no avail, and Sladek’s handle times
failed to improve.
On June 28, Payne called Sladek on the telephone and informed her
that due to ACT not seeing the improvement it was hoping for and
expecting in Sladek’s average handle times, ACT was releasing Sladek from
the assignment. Accordingly, Payne instructed Sladek not to return to
ACT. Sladek became upset and began to cry. She told Payne that the
termination of the assignment was not fair. When it became clear to
Sladek that her pleas to keep her ACT job would be unsuccessful, Sladek
hung up on Payne. She did not ask for another assignment while on the
call, nor did Payne offer another assignment. Payne did not subsequently
reach out to Sladek. Later, Payne testified, “After she hung up on me I did
not contact her because that, you know, she made a pretty bold statement
there by hanging up on me so that I did not contact her. I waited to hear
back from her.”
On July 2, Sladek applied for unemployment benefits. Kelly opposed
the request, taking the position that Sladek had voluntarily quit. In its
response to an Iowa Workforce Development (IWD) questionnaire, Kelly
6
indicated that Sladek had not maintained contact with Kelly, that Kelly’s
employment agreement required Sladek to notify Kelly of her availability
for work within forty-eight hours of the completion of each assignment,
that another signed form required Sladek to contact Kelly within three
business days and seek reassignment or face disqualification for
unemployment benefits on the basis of having voluntarily quit, and that
Sladek had not contacted Kelly for reassignment within three working days
of the last date of work.
IWD tried to reach Sladek by phone on July 28 after receiving the
response from Kelly. IWD and Sladek did not connect until July 31. At
that point, Sladek conceded she had not contacted Payne after June 28.
She explained that she “was having anxiety issues” and “was afraid to
contact them. [She] felt bad for hanging up on [Payne].”
Sladek did not get in touch with Kelly again until that same date of
July 31. 1 On a phone call with Payne, Sladek apologized for hanging up
on Payne and told Payne that she wanted another assignment, as long as
it was not production work due to her physical limitations. Payne reported
to Sladek that there were no available assignments at ACT and that Payne
was not sure if she would be comfortable placing Sladek again due to
Sladek’s conduct on the June 28 phone call. After more conversation,
Payne yielded and told Sladek that if something became available, Payne
would reach out to Sladek, although not if it was another customer service
assignment with ACT. She also told Sladek to review Kelly’s website for
assignments other than with ACT.
1The record does not directly indicate whether Sladek’s call to Payne preceded or
followed Sladek’s phone call with IWD. Circumstantially, it appears the call with IWD
came first. Presumably Sladek would not have told IWD on July 31 that she had last
spoken to Payne on June 28 if she had just talked with Payne earlier that day.
7
Also on July 31, IWD issued a written unemployment insurance
decision that Sladek received two days later on August 2. The decision
stated,
YOU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE BENEFITS. . . .
....
. . . OUR RECORDS INDICATE YOU VOLUNTARILY
QUIT YOUR EMPLOYMENT ON 06/28/17, WHEN YOU
FAILED TO NOTIFY THE TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT FIRM
WITHIN THREE WORKING DAYS OF THE COMPLETION OF
YOUR LAST WORK ASSIGNMENT. YOU HAD BEEN TOLD IN
WRITING OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY THE FIRM.
Sladek appealed the denial to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals
Bureau. An in-person hearing was held before an administrative law judge
(ALJ) at which both Sladek and Payne testified. On September 29, the ALJ
affirmed in writing the denial of unemployment benefits, finding that
Sladek “separated from employment without good cause attributable to
the employer.” Referencing Iowa Code section 96.5(1) and Iowa
Administrative Rules 871—24.25(28) and 871—24.26(15), the ALJ entered
the following conclusions of law:
The purpose of [Iowa Code section 96.5(1)(j)] is to
provide notice to the temporary agency employer that the
claimant is available for and seeking work at the end of the
temporary assignment. While the administrative law judge
understands that claimant had never been expected to strictly
comply with the three-day policy, this separation from
employment is different from claimant’s previous separations.
During her previous separations from temporary
assignments, the employer offered to seek additional work for
her. That was not the case during her separation on June 28.
At no point during the June 28 conversation did the claimant
ask for or the employer offer any additional work. Further,
claimant abruptly ended the conversation by hanging up on
the employer, and she made no additional contact for
approximately four weeks. The employer had no reason to
believe that claimant was seeking an additional assignment.
Rather, the administrative law judge believes that claimant
hanging up on the employer and ceasing contact for multiple
8
weeks demonstrates an intent to end her employment
relationship with the temporary staffing agency.
....
. . . Claimant hung up on the employer and did not
reach out for multiple weeks to notify the employer if she was
interested in any additional work. Claimant’s end of
employment was without good cause attributable to the
employer. Benefits are withheld.
On October 12, Sladek appealed the ALJ decision to the EAB. The
EAB adopted the ALJ’s findings and conclusions in whole on November 9.
Sladek petitioned for judicial review in the Iowa District Court for
Johnson County on December 6. The district court upheld the EAB ruling
on May 16, 2018. Among other things, the court concluded, “The record
provides substantial evidence for the EAB’s factual finding of voluntary
quitting, including that Sladek hung up on her supervisor and failed to
follow up with Kelly for approximately four weeks.”
On June 5, Sladek appealed the district court’s order, and we
transferred the case to the Iowa Court of Appeals. On May 15, 2019, the
Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court.
Sladek applied for further review to this court, and we granted her
application.
III. Standard of Review.
“When reviewing the decision of the district court’s judicial review
ruling, we determine if we would reach the same result as the district court
in our application of the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act.” Insituform
Techs., Inc. v. Emp’t Appeal Bd., 728 N.W.2d 781, 787 (Iowa 2007). We
generally defer to the EAB’s findings of fact if supported by substantial
evidence. See Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f). However, in a recent case, we
made clear that we would not defer to the EAB’s interpretation of various
legal terms used in Iowa Code section 96.5 including “voluntary.” Irving
9
v. Emp’t Appeal Bd., 883 N.W.2d 179, 185 (Iowa 2016). Accordingly, we
will review the EAB’s legal interpretations for errors at law. See Iowa Code
§ 17A.19(10)(c). We have said that we “construe the provisions of [chapter
96] liberally to carry out its humane and beneficial purpose.”
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Emp’t Appeal Bd., 570 N.W.2d 85, 96 (Iowa
1997).
IV. Did Sladek Voluntarily Quit Her Employment Without Good
Cause Attributable to the Employer?
A. The Controlling Law. Iowa Code section 96.5 provides, in part,
An individual shall be disqualified for benefits,
regardless of the source of the individual’s wage credits:
1. Voluntary quitting. If the individual has left work
voluntarily without good cause attributable to the individual’s
employer, if so found by the department. But the individual
shall not be disqualified if the department finds that:
....
j. (1) The individual is a temporary employee of a
temporary employment firm who notifies the temporary
employment firm of completion of an employment assignment
and who seeks reassignment. Failure of the individual to
notify the temporary employment firm of completion of an
employment assignment within three working days of the
completion of each employment assignment under a contract
of hire shall be deemed a voluntary quit unless the individual
was not advised in writing of the duty to notify the temporary
employment firm upon completion of an employment
assignment or the individual had good cause for not
contacting the temporary employment firm within three
working days and notified the firm at the first reasonable
opportunity thereafter.
Iowa Code § 96.5(1)(j)(1).
Thus, the section establishes a general rule that “voluntary quitting”
disqualifies an individual from unemployment benefits. However, an
individual is not disqualified if the individual “is a temporary employee of
a temporary employment firm who notifies the temporary employment firm
10
of completion of an employment assignment and who seeks reassignment.”
Id. Additionally, an individual is deemed to have voluntarily quit if the
individual fails to notify the temporary employment firm of completion of
an assignment within three working days (subject to certain
qualifications). Id.
In other words, as we read it, the statute contains (1) a rule, (2) an
exception to the rule, and (3) an exception to the exception to the rule.
There is no dispute that Sladek was a temporary employee within
the meaning of Iowa Code section 96.5, and Kelly was a temporary
employment firm. See id. § 96.5(1)(j)(3) (defining these terms). It is equally
undisputed that Sladek was advised in writing of the notification
requirement, and Sladek signed a document indicating her receipt and
understanding of the policy. See id. § 96.5(1)(j)(2) (discussing these
requirements).
B. Applying the Law Here. To begin, we conclude substantial
evidence supports the EAB’s finding that Sladek voluntarily quit within
the meaning of Iowa Code section 96.5(1). On June 28, 2017, Sladek hung
up on Payne, her supervisor. She did not reach out again until five weeks
later, apparently after learning that Kelly was contesting Sladek’s claim for
unemployment benefits. As the EAB found,
The employer had no reason to believe that claimant was
seeking an additional assignment. . . . [C]laimant hanging up
on the employer and ceasing contact for multiple weeks
demonstrate[d] an intent to end her employment relationship
with the temporary staffing agency.
This factual finding is subject to a substantial evidence review, and we
conclude it is supported by substantial evidence.
Having upheld the finding of a voluntary quit within the meaning of
Iowa Code section 96.5(1), we now address whether the safe harbor in the
11
first sentence of section 96.5(1)(j)(1) applies. Did Sladek notify Kelly of her
completion of the ACT assignment and “seek[] reassignment”? If so, she
is not disqualified from benefits unless the second sentence of section
96.5(1)(j)(1) applies.
Here too, the EAB’s finding is supported by substantial evidence. It
is clear that Sladek did not seek reassignment from Kelly on June 28. To
the contrary, she hung up on her boss.
Sladek raises two arguments to the contrary. First, she contends
that Kelly had actual notice her assignment had ended. That ignores the
second part of the safe harbor’s sentence which reads, “and who seeks
reassignment.” Id. § 96.5(1)(j)(1). There is no evidence Sladek sought
reassignment on June 28. Sladek’s argument would render part of the
statute mere surplusage. See id. § 4.4(2) (setting forth the presumption
that “[t]he entire statute is intended to be effective”).
Second, Sladek insists that she did seek a new assignment,
although not until July 31. However, this was over a month later, after
Sladek had already sought unemployment benefits and after she had
apparently learned through an IWD phone call that Kelly was contesting
her benefits. Iowa Code section 96.5(1)(j)(1) does not say when the
temporary employee must seek reassignment, but principles of
reasonableness apply. See id. § 4.4(3) (setting forth the presumption that
“[a] just and reasonable result is intended”). Whatever the scope of the
safe harbor in the first sentence of section 96.5(1)(j)(1), it clearly does not
encompass such a belated request.
The final issue is whether the exception to the exception in the
second sentence of Iowa Code section 96.5(1)(j)(1) applies. The parties read
the statute differently. The EAB maintains that Sladek had to affirmatively
notify Kelly that the ACT assignment was over; Sladek argues it was
12
enough that Kelly knew the assignment had ended. See id. § 96.5(1)(j)(1).
But we need not resolve this dispute. Because Sladek voluntarily quit her
employment with Kelly and failed to request a new assignment within a
reasonable time, she is already disqualified from benefits.
A Pennsylvania appellate court recently decided a case on similar
facts. See Thiessen v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 178 A.3d 255
(Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018). In Thiessen, the employee signed on with a
temporary staffing agency, executing an agreement that required him to
contact the agency within forty-eight hours of the completion of
assignment and request a new assignment. Id. at 257. The employee was
assigned to perform work at Veeva. Id. at 257–58. On August 26, the
temporary agency contacted the employee and informed him his services
were no longer needed at Veeva. Id. at 258. “When notifying him,
Employer did not offer Claimant a new assignment.” Id. In December, the
employee applied for unemployment benefits and was ultimately denied.
Id. at 258–59.
In upholding this administrative decision, the court reasoned as
follows:
Employees of temporary staffing agencies who fail to follow the
employer agency’s policies regarding work availability will be
considered to have voluntarily quit “work.”
In this case, Employer’s policy specifically provides that
an employee will be considered “to have voluntarily quit
employment” should he or she fail to contact Employer within
48 hours of the completion of an assignment. Claimant
admits that he signed an agreement with Employer containing
this provision and that he was aware Employer had such a
policy, both in his response to the claimant questionnaire and
at the hearing.
Id. at 261 (citations omitted). The court also rejected the employee’s
argument that there was no voluntary quit “because he had forgotten
13
about the policy and Employer failed to remind of it when calling to inform
him that his assignment with Veeva had ended.” Id.; see also
Careerxchange, Inc. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 916 So. 2d 68, 70
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (“The statute is designed to allow temporary
employees to preserve their qualification for unemployment by notifying
their employers at the conclusion of an assignment that they are still
available for work. If work is available, the employee continues the
relationship with the temporary employment firm. If no work is available,
the employee preserves his or her right to unemployment compensation
benefits.” (Emphasis added.)).
C. Sladek’s Out-of-State Caselaw Is Not on Point. In contrast to
Thiessen, the out-of-state cases cited by Sladek are easily distinguishable.
Sladek first refers us to the Minnesota Supreme Court case of Brown v.
Port of Sunnyside Club, Inc. in support of her assertion that hanging up
during a telephone call of heightened emotion should not be characterized
as a quit. See 304 N.W.2d 877, 879 (Minn. 1981). There, the employee
and his supervisor became engaged in a shouting match. Id. at 878. The
employee began to walk away, and his supervisor called after him to “keep
on walking.” Id. The employee “inferred from this statement that he had
been dismissed from employment.” Id. The court ultimately determined
that the employee’s “temporary removal of himself from a heated and
frustrated argument was not an unreasonable act and cannot be viewed
as a voluntary termination.” Id. at 879. Rather, “the general manager’s
statement to [the employee] to keep on walking constitutes an involuntary
termination.” Id. Here, Sladek hung up the phone on her supervisor, and
unlike the supervisor in Brown, Sladek’s supervisor at Kelly did not
respond or even get a chance to do so.
14
Sladek also relies on Mbong v. New Horizons Nursing, decided by the
Minnesota Court of Appeals. See 608 N.W.2d 890 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
There, the court was asked to decide whether an employee of a temporary
agency who rejected day-to-day assignments in order to search for
permanent fulltime employment could be found to have quit employment.
Id. at 893. Invoking the decision of Smith v. Employers’ Overload Co., 314
N.W.2d 220 (Minn. 1981), the court held “the failure of [a claimant] to
accept further fill-in assignments from [a temporary employment firm]
does not constitute a ‘quit’ under” the Minnesota unemployment
compensation statute. Id. at 894; see also Smith, 314 N.W.2d at 221–22
(holding that there was not an ongoing employment relationship with a
temporary employment firm at the completion of a one-day spot labor
assignment which paid out at the end of each day worked). The court was
apprehensive that characterizing the relationship between a temporary
employee and a temporary employment firm as ongoing employment would
“trap” temporary employees in an unfair relationship in which only the
employee was obligated to perform. Mbong, 608 N.W.2d at 894. Relying
on “basic contract principles,” the court elaborated,
With temporary agencies, an employment relationship arises
only when each temporary assignment is offered and
accepted. Once each assignment is completed, the
employment relationship ends because there is neither a
guarantee of future assignments nor any employer obligation
to provide them.
Id. at 895.
Our case presents a different set of circumstances. Sladek hung up
on her supervisor after being told her assignment at ACT was ending and
thereafter failed to contact Kelly for nearly five weeks. Kelly does not
contend Sladek voluntarily quit as the employer did in Mbong because she
15
declined a proposed assignment. Mbong is factually and legally
distinguishable.
Sladek relies also on Cintemp, Inc., CTI Personnel v. Unemployment
Insurance Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce
Development, decided by the Indiana Court of Appeals. See 717 N.E.2d
988 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Cintemp is distinguishable. There, fifteen
employees of a temporary agency were placed with companies that could
elect to permanently hire the individuals after a trial placement, otherwise
known as a temp-to-hire arrangement. Id. at 990. The client companies
offered the assignees permanent employment, which they accepted after
being also told that they probably would not be able to continue as
temporary assignees. Id. at 990–91. According to the employees’ contract
with the temp agency, this ended their employment with the temp agency.
Id. The client companies then laid the workers off. Id. at 990. The
employees applied for unemployment compensation. Id. at 990–91. It
became necessary to classify their prior separation of employment from
the temp agency. Id. at 991. The Indiana Court of Appeals found that the
separation was neither a quit nor a discharge, so no disqualification from
benefits would be imposed. Id. at 992–93. Sladek, in contrast, did not
lose her position with Kelly because she had to accept permanent
employment with ACT in order to continue working there. Cintemp is
likewise factually and legally distinguishable.
It is also worth noting, as did our court of appeals, that certain
provisions of Sladek’s employment contract with Kelly reinforce the
conclusion she voluntarily quit. Within forty-eight hours of her completion
of the assignment with ACT, Sladek was supposed to notify Kelly of her
availability for work. She did not. Sladek was responsible for maintaining
weekly contact with Kelly and agreed that failure to contact Kelly could
16
affect her eligibility for unemployment benefits. Yet Sladek allowed nearly
five weeks to lapse before contacting Kelly.
V. Conclusion.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district
court and the decision of the court of appeals denying Sladek’s petition for
judicial review.
AFFIRMED.
All justices concur except Appel, J., who concurs specially.
17
#18–0981, Sladek v. Emp’t Appeal Bd.
APPEL, Justice (concurring specially).
Two issues were raised by temporary employer Kelly Services USA,
LLC (Kelly) before the administrative law judge and the Employment
Appeal Board in this case. First, Kelly claimed that Teresa Sladek was not
entitled to unemployment benefits because she failed to notify Kelly, as
her employer, within three days of the termination of her employment as
required by Iowa Code section 96.5(1)(j)(1) (2018). Second, Kelly claimed
that Sladek voluntarily quit her job with Kelly.
On the first issue, I have my doubts. It was undisputed that when
Sladek was having trouble with her temporary job at ACT, Sladek
repeatedly told Kelly that she wanted continued employment and that
Kelly representatives assured her that they would look for other
employment for her. It is similarly undisputed that Kelly knew that in the
event Sladek was terminated from her temporary position at ACT, she
wanted another job. The conversation between Sladek and Sladek’s
contact person at Kelly, Staci Payne, after Sladek’s job with ACT came to
an end must be seen in the context of the earlier conversations that
preceded it. Under the circumstances, I do not think that Kelly can
credibly argue that it did not know that Sladek desired alternate
employment through Kelly one way or another.
So what is the purpose of providing notice duplicative of a fact one
already knows? Iowa Code section 96.5(1)(j)(1) does not require magic
words in order to protect the veritable fortress of unemployment benefits
against a claim by a temporary employee who becomes upset when she is
terminated from her position. A hypertechnical “tell them what you have
already repeatedly told them” approach would have to be squared with our
repeated admonition that the provisions of the Iowa Employment Security
18
Law are to be construed “liberally to carry out its humane and beneficial
purpose.” Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Employment Appeal Bd., 570
N.W.2d 85, 96 (Iowa 1997); see, e.g., Irving v. Employment Appeal Bd., 883
N.W.2d 179, 192 (Iowa 2016); Brumley v. Iowa Dep’t of Job Serv., 292
N.W.2d 126, 129 (Iowa 1980); Smith v. Iowa Employment Sec. Comm’n, 212
N.W.2d 471, 472–73 (Iowa 1973). Further, as the district court noted,
Sladek did not attempt to give an explanation that would fall under the
good-cause-for-delay requirement of Iowa Code section 96.5(1)(j)(1). As the
district court noted, “If she had done so, it is highly possible that the result
would be different . . . .”
Assuming without deciding that Sladek should not be disqualified
based on a nonfunctioning, hypertechnical application of the three-days-
notice requirement, I now turn to the question of whether Sladek
voluntarily quit her employment at Kelly. As recognized by the
administrative law judge, Iowa Administrative Code rule 871—24.25
provides that a voluntary quit without cause, “[i]n general, . . . means
discontinuing the employment because the employee no longer desires to
remain in the relationship of an employee with the employer from whom
the employee has separated.”
Here, the record establishes that Sladek hung up on Payne in
frustration about losing her job at ACT and did not call Payne back for
several weeks. Sladek only called Payne after Kelly contested her
unemployment benefits. Although Sladek insisted that she did not call
back earlier because she was embarrassed by her behavior, I have
examined the hearing transcript and find there was sufficient evidence in
the record to support an inference that Sladek was so frustrated with
employment through Kelly that she was finished with the agency. Under
this view of the record, the call back to Payne was too late and may have
19
been made with the aim of improving her position regarding
unemployment benefits more than to actually obtain another job through
Kelly.
The record would also support a contrary conclusion. Temporary
employment was critical to Sladek, and hanging up on Payne could be
viewed as a deeply felt emotional expression of frustration with her
predicament. Yet, as the district court rightly observed, we do not review
administrative findings de novo. Because the agency’s fact-finding on the
issue of voluntary quit is supported by substantial evidence, I agree with
the result in this case.