Company's lax COVID safety measures could lead to worker to unemployment benefits
A Utah judge instructed an appeals board to reconsider the claim of an employee who quit his job over his employer's alleged failure to adhere to COVID safety protocols.
The Utah Court of Appeals instructed the Workforce Appeals Board to reconsider the claim of an employee who quit his job over his employer’s alleged failure to adhere to COVID-19 safety protocols.
Timothy Mahoney worked for Troon Golf at a resort in St. George, Utah, when the pandemic hit. The property consists of 28 bungalows including a welcome center where guests register for their visits, according to the appeals court’s April 14 opinion. In March 2020, the resort remained open but the welcome center was closed. Instead, guests were provided contact-free check-in and check-out.
The resort also eliminated “same day turnover” of the bungalows with the intention of giving resort staff more time to clean and disinfect the rooms and “[lowering] the risk of the housekeeping staff being exposed to the COVID-19 virus.” During this time, a sanitation worker would clean the rooms with a disinfecting fogger while wearing a Tyvek suit, face shield and gloves, according to the opinion. Mahoney and his fellow coworkers wore masks but guests and the owners of the property were not required to do the same.
Related: Employers relaxing COVID safety measures amid Omicron surge, labor shortages
At the end of May 2020, Mahoney was instructed by his employer to return to “same day turnover” of the bungalows. The compressed time frame for cleaning meant that Mahoney himself would need to disinfect rooms “moments after” guests had left. Since his wife had a medical condition placing her in a high-risk category, Mahoney became very concerned about risk of contracting the virus, the opinion said.
His employer also wanted the welcome center reopened by June 2020, according to the opinion. Mahoney began putting in place COVID protocols like plexiglass dividers and floor markings for social distancing. Mahoney alleged the manager representing the resort owners showed up at the welcome center “on an almost daily basis” and refused to wear a mask or social distance, while also pressuring Mahoney to open the welcome center before the plexiglass or floor signage arrived. Mahoney alleged the manager also ignored his request to “step away and please wear a mask,” according to the opinion.
After repeatedly expressing, to no avail, “extreme displeasure” and “strong objections” to reopening the welcome center and resuming same-day turnovers, Mahoney quit Troon and began looking for another job, according to the opinion.
When he applied for unemployment insurance benefits, the Utah Department of Workforce Services denied his claim, citing failure to “establish good cause for leaving,” according to the appeals court. An appeal to the Administrative Law Judge ended in a second denial, with the judge stating that Mahoney had “not shown he faced an unpreventable harm by remaining at work, and ha[d] not met his burden of proving he had good cause to voluntarily end his employment.”
In an appeal of the ALJ decision to the Workforce Appeals Board, Mahoney was again denied. The board stated that the “’decision to quit and look for other work in this field—where he does not seem likely to find anything appreciably safer—was not logical, sensible, or practical,’” according to the appeals court’s opinion.
Mahoney argued to the Court of Appeals that the board “made an incorrect assumption about the availability and prevalence of proper [personal protective equipment].” He also asserted that the Tyvek suit, gloves and mask worn by the sanitation worker were provided by Mahoney himself, not his employer.
Mahoney further challenged the board decision based on the issues at the welcome center, arguing that his direct manager expected to reopen the welcome center in advance of protective measures being in place, refused to wear a mask and refused to adhere to social distancing guidelines.
“Unfortunately, the board made no findings on these issues, which Mahoney testified drove him to resign,” Court of Appeals Judge Jill Pohlman wrote in her opinion.
Pohlman, joined by Judges Ryan M. Harris and Ryan D. Tenney, set aside the board’s decision and remanded the case for further consideration, finding that the board ”made at least one factual finding lacking substantial evidence, and it declined to address two of Mahoney’s complaints.”
Pohlman wrote that “these errors were significant enough” to have potentially warranted a different outcome.
Amanda B. McPeck, attorney for the state Department of Workforce Services, could not be reached for comment. Mahoney was pro se and contact information for him could not be located.
Read more: