Board of Review Decision 352-ND47-22D3

An ongoing difficult dynamic between the claimant and his supervisor aggravated the claimant’s mental health condition. Because the problem persisted despite taking three leaves of absence, seeing a doctor and taking medication, and asking for help from Employee Relations, the Board held he left due to urgent, compelling, and necessitous reasons. He is eligible for benefits pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(1).

Board of Review
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Issue ID:  352-ND47-22D3     

Board of Review Decision

Introduction and Procedural History of this Appeal 

The claimant appeals a decision by a review examiner of the Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) to deny unemployment benefits. We review, pursuant to our authority under G.L. c. 151A, § 41, and reverse. 

The claimant separated from his position with the employer and filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the DUA, effective October 5, 2025, which was approved in a determination issued on November 11, 2025. The employer appealed the determination to the DUA hearings department. Following a hearing on the merits attended only by the employer, the review examiner overturned the agency’s initial determination and denied benefits in a decision rendered on January 28, 2026. We accepted the claimant’s application for review.

Benefits were denied after the review examiner determined that the claimant engaged in deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard of the employer’s interest and, thus, he was disqualified under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(2). After considering the recorded testimony and evidence from the hearing, the review examiner’s decision, and the claimant’s appeal, we remanded the case to the review examiner to afford the claimant an opportunity to participate in the hearing and to obtain further evidence about the circumstances which led to the claimant’s separation. Both parties attended the remand hearing. Thereafter, the review examiner issued his consolidated findings of fact. Our decision is based upon our review of the entire record.

The issue before the Board is whether the review examiner’s decision, which concluded that the claimant was ineligible for benefits pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(2), due to his refusal to discuss a performance improvement plan or return to work after a meeting, is supported by substantial and credible evidence and is free from error of law.

Findings of Fact

The review examiner’s consolidated findings of fact and credibility assessment are set forth below in their entirety:

1. The claimant worked full time in the environmental services department from 9/1/14 until 9/16/25. 
2. In 2015, he was promoted to evening supervisor of [sic] department. 
3. The claimant’s duties consisted of supervising approximately 25 maintenance personnel and ensuring the hospital premises complied with relevant environmental standards. 
4. The claimant has a history of anxiety and depression which had sometimes been aggravated by stressful interactions with his supervisor. 
5. Sometime during 2023, due to the stressful interactions with his supervisor, the claimant asked the HR department seeking [sic] an accommodation by providing a social worker to assist the claimant whenever the claimant had to meet with the supervisor. 
6. The HR department refused the request for the accommodation. 
7. During the time between when the claimant asked for the social worker and 9/11/25, the claimant had asked for medical leaves 3 times to address his work-related anxiety. 
8. The requests for medical leave were approved. 
9. On 9/11/25, the claimant was called to a meeting with his supervisor and the operations manager to discuss the claimant’s job performance. 
10. The meeting was held in the supervisor’s office. 
11. The claimant was advised that because the quality of his work needed to improve and he [sic] being given a second and final warning. 
12. The claimant was also presented with a Performance Improvement Plan. 
13. Upon receiving the plan, the claimant became irate and asked if he was being given the warning simply because he asked questions. 
14. In response to the claimant’s anger, the claimant[‘s] supervisor became angry [sic] told the claimant to “just leave, we don’t need to continue”. 
15. The operations manager told the supervisor to “just stop” and attempted unsuccessfully to calm the supervisor and the claimant so the meeting could continue. 
16. After the operation’s manager spoke, the claimant continued ask his supervisor why he was getting another warning. 
17. The supervisor became angrier and again told the claimant to leave or he would be escorted out by security. 
18. The supervisor also asked the claimant to surrender his keys to the property, which the claimant did. 
19. The claimant was scheduled to return to work on 9/12/25, but did not report to work or call in. 
20. On 9/12/25, the HR director called the claimant to ask why he did not return to work. 
21. During the conversation, the claimant advised that he did not return because he had been fired. 
22. The HR [partner] told the claimant he had not been terminated because [the] claimant’s supervisor did not have authority to terminate his employment without approval of HR. 
23. The claimant explained he was afraid for his safety and could not return to work. 
24. The claimant was also scheduled to work on 9/15, 9/16/, 9/17 but did not report to work or call in to explain why on any of those days. 
25. On or about 9/16/25, the claimant received an email from Human Resources advising him that “If You do not report to work as scheduled by September 22, 2025, we will consider your position abandoned, and your employment with [Employer] will end effective September 22.” 
26. The claimant did not speak with or respond to the HR director on 9/16/25 because he had already explained why he wasn’t returning to work in the conversation on 9/12/25. 
27. The claimant did not return to work because he was concerned about his safety.              

Credibility Assessment: 

The claimant and the employer testified and were responsive throughout the hearing and there was no reason to doubt their credibility. At numerous times, the claimant became quite agitated, which credibly demonstrated the work-related emotional trauma about which the claimant had testified.

Ruling of the Board

In accordance with our statutory obligation, we review the record and the decision made by the review examiner to determine: (1) whether the consolidated findings are supported by substantial and credible evidence; and (2) whether the review examiner’s conclusion is free from error of law. Upon such review, the Board adopts the review examiner’s consolidated findings of fact and deems them to be supported by substantial and credible evidence. We further believe that the review examiner’s credibility assessment is reasonable in relation to the evidence presented. However, as discussed more fully below, we disagree with the review examiner’s legal conclusion that the claimant is ineligible for benefits.

The first question is whether the claimant quit or was discharged. He maintains that his supervisor fired him at the meeting on September 11^th, and the employer asserts that the claimant resigned by abandoning his job when he failed to call in or report for work on September 12, 15, 16, 17, and 22, 2025. See Consolidated Findings 9–19 and 24–27. Whether or not the claimant reasonably believed that his supervisor had fired him at the September 11^th meeting, the employer’s Employee Relations partner made it clear to the claimant both in a call the next day and in a follow up letter that he had not been terminated and was expected to return to work. See Consolidated Findings 20, 22, and 25.

In Olechnicky v. Dir. of Division of Employment Security, 325 Mass. 660, 661 (1950), the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the Board of Review’s conclusion that the failure of an employee to notify his employer of the reason for absence is tantamount to a voluntary leaving of employment within the meaning of G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(1). Because the claimant in the present case did not report for work on September 12, 15, 16, 17, and 22 and did not call in his absences, he is deemed to have voluntarily resigned.

As such, his eligibility for benefits is properly analyzed pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(1), which states, in relevant part, as follows:

[No waiting period shall be allowed and no benefits shall be paid to an individual under this chapter] . . . (e) For the period of unemployment next ensuing . . . after the individual has left work (1) voluntarily unless the employee establishes by substantial and credible evidence that he had good cause for leaving attributable to the employing unit or its agent . . . [or] if such individual established to the satisfaction of the commissioner that his reasons for leaving were for such an urgent, compelling and necessitous nature as to make his separation involuntary.

These provisions expressly place the burden of proof upon the claimant.

In order to determine whether the separation was for good cause attributable to the employer, the focus is on the employer’s conduct and not on the employee’s personal reasons for leaving. Conlon v. Dir. of Division of Employment Security, 382 Mass. 19, 23 (1980). “[A] ‘wide variety of personal circumstances’ have been recognized as constituting ‘urgent, compelling and necessitous’ reasons under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(1), which may render involuntary a claimant’s departure from work.” Norfolk County Retirement System v. Dir. of Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 759, 765 (2009), quoting Reep v. Comm’r of Department of Employment and Training, 412 Mass. 845, 847 (1992). Medical conditions are recognized as one such reason. See Dohoney v. Dir. of Division of Employment Security, 377 Mass. 333, 335-336 (1979) (pregnancy or a pregnancy-related disability, not unlike other disabilities, may legitimately require involuntary departure from work).

Here, the consolidated findings show that the claimant stopped reporting to work after he was sent home during a meeting with his supervisor and the operations manager on September 11, 2025. When told during this meeting that he was getting a second and final written warning, and that he was presented with a performance improvement plan, the claimant became irate. He asked if it was because he asked questions and apparently kept asking the supervisor why he was getting another warning. See Consolidated Findings 11–13 and 16. In turn, the supervisor became more and more angry to the point where the operations manager stepped in, told the supervisor to “just stop” and tried to calm them both down. See Consolidated Findings 14, 15, and 17. Finally, the claimant left because the supervisor asked for his keys, directed him to leave, and threatened to call security if the claimant did not. See Consolidated Findings 14 and 17. 

The record reveals a history of conflict between the two of them. The review examiner found that the claimant’s mental health condition of anxiety and depression was aggravated by stressful interactions with his supervisor. Due to this work-related anxiety, the claimant took a medical leave of absence three times and asked Employee Relations to provide a social worker when he had to meet with the supervisor. Consolidated Findings 5, 7, and 8. Although the employer granted the medical leaves, it refused to grant his request for a social worker. Consolidated Findings 6 and 8. 

During the hearing, the supervisor acknowledged that the claimant had mentioned his mental health issues a few times, and the supervisor knew that the claimant needed to go take medication. The claimant testified to seeing his doctor once a month and taking daily medication as well as emergency medication for his anxiety. 

Because they were both angry, it is difficult to assess whether the supervisor’s response to the claimant’s agitation during the meeting was unreasonable. However, we do see urgent, compelling, and necessitous circumstances.

The next day, the claimant explained to Employee Relations that his supervisor made him feel unsafe, and it was for this reason that he did not want to return to work. See Consolidated Finding 23. When the review examiner probed further, the claimant explained that he felt that, if he went back, they might call security and he could not handle security touching him. In his credibility assessment, the review examiner also commented on the claimant’s agitated testimony during the hearing, believing this demonstrated the work-related emotional trauma that he had experienced. Given the unresolved, difficult dynamic between the claimant and his supervisor, and that the claimant’s mental health condition rendered him unable to cope with it, we are satisfied that the claimant had an urgent, compelling, and necessitous reason to leave his employment.

However, our inquiry does not stop here. We must consider his efforts to preserve his job before leaving. “Prominent among the factors that will often figure in the mix when the agency determines whether a claimant’s personal reasons for leaving a job are so compelling as to make the departure involuntary is whether the claimant had taken such ‘reasonable means to preserve her employment’ as would indicate the claimant’s ‘desire and willingness to continue her employment.’” Norfolk County Retirement System, 66 Mass. App. Ct. at 766 (2009), quoting Raytheon Co. v. Dir. of Division of Employment Security, 364 Mass. 593, 597-98 (1974). 

By the September 11, 2025, meeting, the claimant had already taken three medical leaves of absence, was regularly seeing his doctor, and was taking medication. His effort to bring in a social worker to help him deal with the stressful meetings with his supervisor had been denied. The record also shows that, after he told Employee Relations on September 12, 2025, that he felt unsafe returning to work, the employer offered nothing verbally or in writing to indicate that anything further would be done to help the claimant address the problems with his supervisor. In our view, the claimant took reasonable steps to preserve his employment and has demonstrated that further efforts would have been futile.

We, therefore, conclude as a matter of law that the claimant has met his burden to show that he left work involuntarily due to urgent, compelling, and necessitous circumstances. As such, he is eligible for benefits pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(1).

The review examiner’s decision is reversed. The claimant is entitled to receive benefits for the week beginning October 5, 2025, and for subsequent weeks if otherwise eligible.

Boston, Massachusetts                                              Date of Decision – July 17, 2026

1. While not explicitly incorporated into the review examiner’s findings, the portions of the parties’ testimony referenced here and below are part of the unchallenged evidence introduced at the hearing and placed in the record, and they are thus properly referred to in our decision today. See Bleich v. Maimonides School, 447 Mass. 38, 40 (2006); Allen of Michigan, Inc. v. Deputy Dir. of Department of Employment and Training, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 370, 371 (2005).

Martha M. Wishart, Esq.
Chair

Michael J. Albano
Member

Any further appeal would further appeal further appeal would be to a Massachusetts State District Court
(See Section 42, Chapter 151A, General Laws, Enclosed)

The last day to appeal this decision to a Massachusetts District Court is thirty days from the mail date on the first page of this decision. If that thirtieth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the last day to appeal this decision is the business day next following the thirtieth day.

Visit this page to locate the nearest Massachusetts District Court.

Please be advised that fees for services rendered by an attorney or agent to a claimant in connection with an appeal to the Board of Review are not payable unless submitted to the Board of Review for approval, under G.L. c. 151A, § 37.

AB/rh