I was denied unemployment benefits

I cannot receive unemployment benefits because I left without “good cause”…but what if I did??? By Amanda Rangel
Good Cause
Definition: Legal jargon for a legally-justifiable or legitimate business reason. For example, good cause for an employer to discharge an employee includes a layoff for valid financial reasons and serious employee misconduct. Good cause (such as justifying an unemployment insurance claim) for an employee to quit includes a serious, work-related problem that the employee tried to resolve without success.

The day was Sunday, April 5th 2009. I had just returned from another stressful day at my job as Customer Service Rep for Thornton’s Inc, a fueling station/convenience store chain based out of Louisville Kentucky. What made it stressful was that I had to figure out a way to get to work the next day. I didn’t have a driver’s license or a car; and no one to take me to work. Public transportation did not run anywhere near my jobsite, and taxicabs were too costly. My dilemma first presented itself back in August of 2008, when my Assistant Manager took over as General Manager of my store. He knew about my situation and I very calmly and professionally asked to be placed down to part-time because I no longer had a way to get there during the week. I understood we were shorthanded at the time, with most of the CSR’s working 6 days per week. However my request was completely ignored, which only added to my frustration. So I bummed rides here and there, but that didn’t last long. In early 2009 we had another GM switch stores with my GM, and it was at this time that I, again for the

second time asked to be put on part-time status so that I could keep working. My then GM’s solution to the problem was to have my new GM bring me into work. I was reprimanded for this by my Human Resources manager a few weeks later. Shortly after which I once more requested to my new GM to let me go down to part time, and she was fully aware of my situation with the transportation problem the FIRST DAY she came to my store. Yet she continued to put me on the schedule for days that she KNEW I could not get there.
One of Thornton’s mottos is “Serve the customer or serve someone who does.” I’m deeply conflicted by this because how can I be expected to follow this if I am not able to be there for the customers? And why when my management team knew about my pre-existing issue did they deliberately not offer to assist me in resolving it? I honestly feel as though I was forced out. How can Thornton’s stand by the statement of serving the customers or someone who does IF when myself, a CSR, the one on the front lines who is first to see the customers cannot provide the superior service they deserve because the management will not give me the resources and the tools needed to do so? If my performance was such that management didn’t feel that my need for help was warranted, why was there no formal disciplinary action taken? I received 2 write-ups in 3 years. One was for a drive-off (which I will contest to this day,) and two; for attendance because I took a sick day and called off (because as my RM put it was becoming a habit-and I will also contest this.) I’m starting to feel as though the company didn’t really care about me at all in the first place. My management did not see fit to work with me in resolving my issue, but instead placed me into a stressful work environment to ‘sink or swim’.


That brings me to my next piece of this argument, at-will termination. It is okay for your employer, your manager, or your boss, whomever that person of authority may be to pull you into their office and let you go for whatever the reason is or isn’t. What puzzles me is why it is okay for them to do it to us without any reason or notice, but if we do it to them we may as well be committing blasphemy! Why if we decide the company for which we are working in is no longer a fit, can we not just up and leave? Why is it acceptable for an employer to do that to us, and we can’t do it to them?!?! Why are the workers made to look like bad guys? I know they say it’s a courtesy to give at least 2 weeks notice before leaving a job, but is the employer going to extend that same courtesy to us when we’re let go?


Let’s play out a scenario here. John, who’s 23 years old has been working at the local grocer since he was 18. He’s never missed a day of work in that time, nor has he ever been disciplined or reprimanded for performance issues. One day while working on a task his boss approaches him and asks to see him in his office. Without any reason, John is terminated from his job. John doesn’t sit around at home stewing; he’s looking for a job right away. He fills out dozens of applications all over town. A few weeks go by, and then a month and John has not heard from any of the employers where he filled out applications. He decides he’s going to start making phone calls and following up with the different places. To his surprise, not one is hiring. Now could this be due to the current condition of our economy or is it something else? Did his previous employer take into account the effect that firing him would have on his future employment prospects when he terminated him without cause? Now John, who has been out of work for several months cannot secure a job. Fortunately for him he was able to apply for unemployment insurance benefits, and was approved.

Now think about the scenario I’ve just written. In most entry-level positions it states on the application that the employer has the right to terminate the position without cause. I believe that this is completely unfair, especially if there was no misconduct being done. So it becomes a question of morals and ethics. Do YOU believe it is right to terminate someone from a job without cause if there’s no misconduct being committed?And if so, should the employer be required to give an explanation? Should the employee be given the same right to terminate his/her position? Why or why not? Explain your answer.


Here’s another scenario:
John has been working full time as a cashier for a local gas station for 4 years. He’s always on time, does all his side work, and goes above and beyond the call of service. All the employees were very busy, as the monthly inventory/audit was just days away. The audit comes and goes, and it’s not a good one. The store is several thousand dollars short in merchandise. After extensive review of all the paperwork (invoices, deliveries, and shift reports), the merchandise is not found. According to superiors at the corporate level of the company, someone has to be terminated. John’s regional manager informs John’s boss to terminate him, and he does. Not only is this morally wrong but ethically wrong as well. Why did the regional manager and John’s boss decide to single John out for termination? What could their reasoning for this have been? How are they holding John chiefly responsible for the store being thousands of dollars short? Is there evidence that points to him that is suspect?

Repeat the above scenario using John at the gas station, however apply the following changes:
Sales are down this month and after review of the sales totals for each employee, John’s boss is told by the regional manager that John has to be let go. John’s boss terminates him citing that his daily sales are down. John knows that Cecilia, who works the same shifts that he does on the days he isn’t there has lower sales than he does. He also knows that in his tenure that nobody has ever been terminated for this before. He feels that he was wrongly and suspiciously terminated and decides to initiate an investigation. Is he right for doing so? Do you believe that what the regional manager had John’s boss do was justified or not? Explain your answer.