Utah Supreme Court
Can employees quit with good cause to avoid potential termination? Sawyer v. Department of Workforce Services Explained
Summary
Amy Sawyer, a special education teacher, resigned after failing two performance evaluations to avoid a third evaluation that, if failed, would result in termination. DWS denied unemployment benefits, finding she quit without good cause because termination was not certain. The administrative bodies applied an incorrect legal standard requiring certainty rather than evaluating whether a reasonable person would quit given the circumstances.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Sawyer v. Department of Workforce Services provides crucial guidance for employees who resign to avoid potential termination and seek unemployment benefits. The case clarifies when such resignations constitute good cause under Utah’s unemployment compensation laws.
Background and Facts
Amy Sawyer was a special education teacher who failed two consecutive performance evaluations under the Jordan Performance Appraisal System (JPAS). Her principal informed her that a third failed evaluation would result in termination, but she could resign to avoid the evaluation. Concerned about her challenging special-needs students and believing she would likely fail again, Sawyer resigned rather than risk termination, which she feared would prevent future teaching employment. The Department of Workforce Services denied her unemployment benefits.
Key Legal Issues
The case addressed two critical issues: (1) the appropriate standard of review for good-cause-to-quit determinations, and (2) the correct legal standard for evaluating whether resignation to avoid potential discharge constitutes good cause under Utah Code § 35A-4-405(1)(a).
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court first established that good-cause determinations are fact-like mixed questions subject to deferential review under the three-factor Levin analysis. However, the court reviews the underlying legal standard for correctness. The administrative bodies erred by requiring certainty of termination before finding good cause. Instead, the proper standard asks whether “a reasonably prudent person would be justified in quitting under similar circumstances,” considering: (1) the likelihood of termination despite reasonable efforts to remain employed, and (2) the degree to which termination would negatively affect future employment.
Practice Implications
This decision significantly benefits employees facing potential termination. Practitioners should focus on demonstrating the reasonableness of the resignation decision based on the employee’s knowledge at the time, rather than attempting to prove termination was inevitable. Evidence should address both the probability of discharge and its impact on future employment prospects within the employee’s profession.
Case Details
Case Name
Sawyer v. Department of Workforce Services
Citation
2015 UT 33
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20120850
Date Decided
February 6, 2015
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Holding
Good cause to quit employment should be evaluated based on whether a reasonably prudent person would quit under similar circumstances, considering the likelihood of termination despite reasonable efforts and the negative impact on future employment, rather than requiring certainty of termination.
Standard of Review
Deferential review for fact-like mixed questions of law and fact; correctness for the legal standard applied to mixed questions
Practice Tip
When representing clients in unemployment benefits appeals involving resignations to avoid termination, focus on the reasonableness standard and present evidence showing the likelihood of termination and its impact on future employment prospects rather than trying to prove termination was certain.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.