Quit & Discharge Law

DOL Rules and Law

Good Cause (In General)
OCGA 34-8-194 States:
An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:

(1) after such individual has left the most recent employer voluntarily without good cause in connection with the individual's most recent work. Good cause shall be determined by the Commissioner according to the circumstances in the case. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the Commissioner's determination the burden of proof of good work connected cause for voluntarily leaving such work shall be on the individual.

DOL Rule (300-2-9-.05) states that:

An employee who voluntarily quits is to be disqualified unless he/she can show that that the employer had changed the terms and conditions of the work in a manner that the employee, applying the judgment of a reasonable person, would not be expected to continue the employment. Factors which the Commissioner shall consider in making this determination may include, among others, the following:

(a) Whether the employee was downgraded for reasons other than the fault of the claimant;

Back To Quit Types

Quit Due To Harassment DOL Rule (300-2-9-.05)

(b) Whether the employee has undergone harassment on the job of a substantial nature which would induce a reasonable person to quit in order to seek other employment;

Back To Quit Types

Quit Due To Material Job Change DOL Rule (300-2-9-.05)

Back To Quit Types

Quit Due To Reduction in Salary DOL Rule (300-2-9-.05)

(d) An economic downgrade based on the employer's inability to continue the former salary will not be considered as a good cause to quit if the reduction in salary is not a substantial reduction below a reasonable rate for that industry or trade. However, a seasonal or temporary reduction in pay or work hours does not constitute good cause for quitting; or

Back To Quit Types

Quit Due To Health DOL Rule (300-2-9-.05)

(e) Whether the employee's health was placed in jeopardy by conditions on the job. There must be some clear connection between the health problem and the performance of the job, and professional medical advice is required unless the reason would be obvious that harm to the employee would result from continued employment. This includes such obvious things such as broken limbs, violent reactions such as allergies due to the environment on the job and similar circu8mstances. Provided, however, the employee must discuss the matter with the employer to seek a solution by another assignment or other changes that would be appropriate to relieve the medical problem before the employee can show good work-connected cause for quitting.

Back To Quit Types

Quit Due To Unreasonable Work Rules DOL Rule (300-2-9-.05)

(2) Disqualification is not required if an employee quits because the rules of the employer prove to be unreasonable as related to proper job performance.

Back To Quit Types

Separation Due To Layoff Or Mutual Agreement
Benefits Will Not Be Denied if There is a Layoff Or Union Agreement

Benefits shall not be denied under this paragraph, however, to an individual for separation from employment pursuant to a labor management contract or agreement or pursuant to an established employer plan, program, policy, layoff, or recall which permits the individual, because of lack of work, to accept a separation from employment. OCGA 34-8-194 (1).

DOL Rule (300-2-9-.05(e)(4)

When an individual accepts a separation from employment due to a lack of work pursuant to a labor management contract or agreement, or pursuant to an established employer plan, program, policy, layoff, or recall. the Commissioner will determine eligibility based on the individual circumstances of the case. In such cases, to show that the individual quit for good cause connected with the most recent work the facts must demonstrate at a minimum:

(a) That the individual was advised of an actual impending layoff with a date certain, and

(b) That the effective date of the layoff was no more than 6 months after the announcement date.

Back To Quit Types

Medical Quits

DOL Rule 300-2-9-.05(e)

This includes such obvious things such as broken limbs, violent reactions such as allergies due to the environment on the job and similar circumstances.

Provided, however, the employee must discuss the matter with the employer to seek a solution by another assignment or other changes that would be appropriate to relieve the medical problem before the employee can show good work-connected cause for quitting.

Back To Medical Reasons

Not Clear Whether A Quit Or Discharge
Section 300-2-9-.05(3) of the Rules of the Georgia Department of Labor provides that in situations in which it is not clear whether a quit or discharge occurred to cause the separation, the burden of persuasion shall be on the employer to show that a quit rather than a discharge occurred. [When] the employer has failed to meet this burden of persuasion the separation will be adjudicated as a discharge under OCGA Section 34-8-194(2)(A). See also Was This A Supervisor?

Back To Quit Types

Back To Types Of Discharge

Discharge Law
OCGA 34-8-194 (2)(A) States that

An individual shall be disqualified for benefits if::

For the week or fraction thereof in which such individual has filed an otherwise valid claim for benefits after the individual has been discharged or suspended from work with the most recent employer for failure to obey orders, rules, or instructions or for failure to discharge the duties for which the individual was employed...

...The burden of proof of just discharge or suspension for cause...shall be on the employer. To requalify following a disqualification, , an individual must secure subsequent employment for which the individual earns insured wages equal to at least ten times the weekly benefit amount of the claim and then become unemployed through no fault on the part of the individual

Poor Performance (Benefits Allowed For Good Faith Effort)

OCGA 34-8-194 (2)(B) States:

B) An individual shall not be disqualified for benefits under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph if, the Commissioner determines:
(i) The individual made a good faith effort to perform the duties for which hired but was simply unable to do so;
(ii) The individual did not intentionally fail or consciously neglect to perform his or her job duties.

Conscious Neglect

Section 300-2-1-.01(9)(b) of the Rules of the Georgia Department
of Labor defines "conscious neglect" as:

A failure to use the degree of care which would be exercised by an ordinarily prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. It does not require a willful intent to abuse an employer's business, but it does require a showing of disregard for the normal or acceptable consequences of the action or the failure to perform one's job duties. It is to be distinguished from the claimant's inability to satisfactorily perform the duties of the job.

Inability (Disproving It)
A showing by the employer that the claimant failed to perform a task for which he or she had previously demonstrated a degree or level of proficiency by satisfactorily performing the task in the past would shift the burden of proof to the claimant to show his or her inability to perform the task in question. DOL Section 300-2-1-.01(9)(b)

See Poor Performance (Chart)

See Employer Proves Inability Not Fault

Absences Due To Illness OCGA 34-8-194 (2)(B)(iii)

An individual shall not be disqualified for benefits if:

(iii) The discharge occurred because of absenteeism and the absences were caused by illness of the claimant or a family member, unless the claimant has without justification failed to notify the employer; or the absence for such illness which led to discharge followed a series of absences, the majority of which were attributable to fault on the part of the claimant in direct violation of the employer's attendance policy and regarding which the claimant has been advised in writing, prior to any of the absences, that unemployment benefits may be denied due to such violations of the employer's policy on attendance; provided, however, that no waiver of an employee's rights under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, as amended, or any other applicable state or federal law shall be construed under this division

Back To Attendance

A Mixture of Tardiness and Absences (DOL Rule300-2-9-.01(2)(a))

(2) In determining whether an individual should be disqualified for benefits under OCGA Section 34-8-194(2),the Commissioner shall consider the factors as set out in (a) through (f) below. In each instance, the warning factor shall not be essential, but may be considered under the totality of circumstances; the absence of a warning may likewise be considered, particularly with respect to mitigation of an offense committed by an employee. In each instance, the Commissioner shall not be limited to a consideration of the factors enumerated herein but may consider such other factors as the totality of circumstances dictates. Once an employer has met its burden of proof with respect to a failure of a claimant to obey rules, orders or instruction or to perform the duties for which he was employed, the Commissioner shall consider any of these factors in mitigation of the offense, action or inaction of the employee.

(a) Where the employee was discharged for absenteeism or tardiness, the Commissioner shall consider:

1.The employer's policy on absenteeism or tardiness and whether the policy was communicated to the employee;

2.Whether the employee had been absent or tardy on prior occasions and had been warned about absenteeism or tardiness;

3.What the employer's policy is with respect to notice of the absence or tardiness and whether the employer was properly notified by the employee;

4.The reason(s) for the absenteeism or tardiness;

5.The frequency of the absenteeism or tardiness; and

6.Whether,upon consideration of the totality of circumstances which surrounded the absences or tardiness, the employee was at fault in the discharge.

Back To Types Of Discharge

Knowledge of Rule, Reasonableness of Rule and Selective Enforcement of Rule

An individual shall not be disqualified for benefits if:

(iv) The discharge occurred as a violation of the employer's rule of which the claimant was not informed by having been made aware thereof by the employer or through common knowledge. Consistency of prior enforcement shall be taken into account as to the reasonableness or existence of the rule and such rule must be lawful and reasonably related to the job environment and job performance. See OCGA 34-8-194 (2)(B)(iii);

(v) Except for activity requiring disqualification under paragraph (4) of this Code section, the employee was exercising a protected right to protest against wages, hours, working conditions, or job safety under the federal National Labor Relations Act or other laws.

Back To Types Of Discharge

See Confirming Receipt Of Warnings Sent By Email

Mutual Agreement
For mutual agreements, it's very important to know who initiated the separation. If it was claimant initiated, this will be deemed a quit. If it was employer initiated, this will be deemed a discharge. When it's not clear, the case will also be treated as a discharge. See DOL Rules Section 300-2-9-.05(3).

For example: If the company was about to fire the employee beforehand, this would be deemed a discharge. As such, benefits would not be denied unless the claimant was shown to be at fault.

But if the employee was ready to leave beforehand, this would be deemed a quit. As in all quits, the claimant must leave for a good work connected cause. A quit for personal reasons will result in disqualification.

Thus, an employee will normally be deemed to have quit without good cause if he leaves early to accept severance or an enhanced leave package. The reason is that he left existing work simply for some personal financial advantage. The notable exception is when the separation occurs within six months of a pending lay off.

In a lawsuit settlement situation such as when the claimant accepts money to leave early, the issue will again be who was first to suggest the separation. For example, if the employer was the first to make the offer, then this will be deemed a discharge, not a quit. Likewise, a compromise by the claimant to leave the company would make this a quit. At that point, the hearing officer would decide if the claimant left work for personal financial reasons or for a good work connected cause.

Note: This is an ill defined area in the law and there is no uniformity among hearing officers. Thus, the outcome of each case may simply depend on which hearing officer you have.

In a union agreement or union authorized work stoppage, the claimant will normally be entitled to benefits. One possible exception is if the claimant was directly or indirectly responsible for the work stoppage. See Ford Motor Co. v. Abercrombie, 207 Ga. 464, 62 S.E.2d 209 (1950) (decided under Ga. L. 1937, p. 806).

Back To Quit Types

Back To Types Of Discharge

Was this a Supervisor?
It may be instrumental to your case to determine whether or not someone was a supervisor or if it was reasonable for the person to be seen as such. This is especially true in cases involving insubordination, quit for sexual harassment or when the claimant says he was fired when he really quit. It may also be important when the claimant was absent and failed to notify the right person.

The employer's position may vary depending on the type of case it is. For example: if it's a quit but the claimant alleges "my supervisor fired me.", the employer should demonstrate that the claimant knew or should have known that the "supervisor" never had any firing authority. However in a case of insubordination, the employer would take the opposite approach and show that regardless of title, the claimant knew or should have known this was a supervisor. The issue may even be whether or not the claimant himself was a supervisor. This could be important if the claimant was fired for misconduct and says he never knew the rule. It could also be important in quits where the claimant left the job before exploring all reasonable alternatives.

Cases Where The Supervisor Issue May Be Very Important:

Insubordination (Claimants says “I didn’t know the team leader was my supervisor-I thought she was just a coworker)
No Call No Show (Claimant wrongfully tells only coworker of absence-"I called nobody else as I thought she was my supervisor.")
Breach Of Confidences (Contrary to rules, claimant discloses salary to non-management employee. He says he thought she was in management);
Quits (Employer says the claimant quit while the claimant says the supervisor fired him. At the hearing the employer denies this person was the claimant’s supervisor or had firing authority).
Sexual Harassment (Were the employees at the same level or was one a supervisor? Knowing such explains whether the parties acted reasonably by behaving the way they did. I.e. was it reasonable for the claimant to quit without notice or skip the chain of command....).
Other Rule Violations (Who told the claimant he could do it this way? Was he a supervisor?)

The Supervisor Smell Test: How To Determine if Someone Was A Supervisor
The questions below can be used to establish whether or not someone was a supervisor. Study them. If asked, the employer should be ready to respond immediately. If you're not asked any of these questions, be sure to address the issues below in rebuttal, which is when you will have already heard the claimant's defenses. For example: using the questions below as a guide, you could state:

"The person was never the claimant's a supervisor. The claimant never reported to him, never took orders from him, never got warnings from him and was never evaluated by him." You could also respond with "Contrary to what the claimant says, this person was definitely his supervisor. The facts show that the claimant reported to her, had to notify her when he was late or absent and was disciplined by her. Thus, when he refused to listen to her, he was insubordinate."

Questions

	What was (the alleged Supervisor's) official title?
	Was the claimant ever required to take orders or instructions from this person? Was anybody?
	Did the claimant ever receive orders or instructions from this person?
	Did this person have any input into whether the claimant received a raise or was disciplined?
	Who gave him warnings and evaluations-Was it this person?
	Who did the claimant report to each day? Was it this person?
	Who did the claimant have to contact if he would be late or absent?
	Did the alleged supervisor have any role in hiring, training or interviewing the claimant? How about others?
	Was the claimant told ever to report to this person if he had questions, problems or difficulties?

Back To Quit Types

Back To Types Of Discharge