The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Foley was employed by P as a machine operator for more than three years. On March 24, 1999, Foley was called to the office of her employer. She believed she was going to be reprimanded for excessive absenteeism. Foley had recently been under stress due to personal problems and she had been absent from work for personal reasons, including illnesses and bad weather. Present in the office were her immediate supervisor (her team leader, Tina James), two other team leaders, and in an office nearby was the manufacturing plant manager. The office door was closed. James testified that Foley was called to the meeting to be issued a 'redirect' regarding her attendance problems. A 'redirect' is a verbal warning, the first step in progressive discipline. Foley testified that she did not recall that occurring. There is no evidence that Foley was aware of the progressive discipline procedures P had in place. Foley's supervisor informed her that she had heard rumors that Foley was looking for another job and that it would be easier on both of them if she were honest about it. Foley began to cry. She advised James that she was under a lot of stress and was worried about being fired and that she required time off the following Monday, March 29, 1999, to take her children to the dentist. Foley was told that her absence on Monday would be unacceptable and that she needed to find someone else to take her children to the dentist. It was suggested that Foley consider resigning because a resignation would look better on her employment record than would a discharge. James suggested she and Foley go together to see the personnel manager to determine what severance benefits would be available. The personnel manager provided Foley with a resignation form, which she completed and signed. It indicated that her last day of work would be two days later, on March 26, 1999. In the section requesting the employee's reason for quitting, Ms. Foley wrote 'personal,' as suggested by the personnel manager. She returned later that day and changed it to read 'distance & transportation & day care duress.' Foley admits she was not told she would be discharged if she did not resign, nor was she told she would be discharged if she failed to report to work the following Monday. She claimed she was placed under duress and coerced into resigning by her employer during the meeting because she was being advised that her absence on March 29 would be unacceptable and she was in fear of being discharged if she did not report to work that day. Foley applied for unemployment benefits. The Division of Employment Security determined that Foley was disqualified for benefits because she left her work voluntarily without good cause attributable to her work or employer. Foley appealed and the referee concluded that Foley left her work voluntarily because she felt she would be discharged and she did not want a discharge on her employment record. The Tribunal concluded that P did not advise Foley she had to leave work voluntarily or be discharged, and further concluded that Foley's decision to leave her work voluntarily was unreasonable, not in good faith, and without good cause attributable to the work or the employer. Foley then appealed to the Labor and Industrial Commission. It reversed the finding that Foley's actions were reasonable, her resignation was in good faith, and that she was not disqualified from benefits. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.