Bis v Electronic Data Systems
Digest no. 10.86
Cite as: Bis v Electronic Data Systems, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March 8, 1995 (Docket No. 156482).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Lawrence C. Bis
Employer: Electronic Data Systems Corporation
Docket no.: B90-16245-117532W
Date of decision: March 8, 1995
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The employer did not make working conditions so unpleasant that a reasonable person in the claimant’s shoes would have felt compelled to resign for reasons attributable to the employer.
FACTS: As a condition of hire, the employer required claimant to complete a three-phase training program. The claimant successfully completed the first phase but resigned after completing two weeks of the second phase. The second phase required participants to work fifteen to sixteen hours per day, seven days per week, for ten weeks, to test their physical and mental stamina. The employer allowed three warnings regarding performance during the second phase before a participant would be discharged. Claimant experienced physical and emotional problems during the second phase, but did not inform his supervisor. Rather, he expressed doubts about his ability to continue and requested to return to phase one. The claimant had not fallen behind in the second phase or received a performance warning. The claimant’s supervisor informed him that if he did not complete the second phase he would be terminated. The claimant concluded he had no choice but to resign or face termination, so he decided to resign.
DECISION: The claimant is disqualified for benefits.
RATIONALE: The “good cause” standard essentially asks “whether an employee left work with `cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.'” Cooper v University of Michigan, 100 Mich App 99, 105 (1980). The claimant’s self-doubts ultimately led him to resign. The claimant was entitled to three performance warnings, and had not received any warnings before resigning. His supervisors believed he could successfully complete the program. Nothing indicated the claimant was incapable of successfully completing the second phase.
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 7/99