Connolly v. Massachusetts Division of Unemployment Assistance and Verizon New England, Inc.

(Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court)

• Opposing Eligibility for Unemployment Assistance of an Employee Who Voluntarily Quit in Return for an Incentive Package

In this case Connolly volunteered to quit her job in return for a separation package but now seeks a ruling that she is entitled to unemployment benefits because Verizon, in accepting her offer to quit, in effect terminated her involuntarily. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows. In October 2008, Verizon determined that there existed a surplus of employees in a customer-service department located one floor above Connolly’s. The company transferred twelve of these employees to Connolly’s department, in an effort to rebalance personnel and workload.  In another measure aimed at the same goal, Verizon offered customer-service representatives in Connolly’s department the opportunity to put in for a voluntary separation package. Under the terms of this package, employees would receive compensation to which they would otherwise not be entitled, in return for agreeing to leave Verizon’s employ. Connolly was one of two employees who applied for the separation package, and Verizon approved both of them. There is no evidence in the record that, absent these two offers, Verizon planned to lay anyone off. Pursuant to the terms of her separation package, Verizon removed Connolly from the its payroll as of November 1, 2008 and paid her a total of $27,600 to which she would not otherwise have been entitled. Shortly thereafter, Connelly applied to the Division of Unemployment Assistance (“DUA”) for unemployment benefits.  Her claim was rejected by the DUA, a decision upheld by the trial court, and the Supreme Judicial Court then granted direct appellate review. On appeal, Connolly argues that her termination was involuntary as a matter of law. She contends that under Morillo v. Director of the Division of Employment Security, 394 Mass. 765 (1985), an employee is terminated involuntarily whenever the employer takes the last step in the termination process, as Verizon supposedly did here when it exercised its discretion and accepted her offer to quit. Believing that this proposed bright-line test is not justified by anything in Morillo and would sweep far too broadly, NELF has filed an amicus brief in support of Verizon. As an initial matter, NELF argues that, because she conceded that her termination was voluntary before the DUA, on appeal Connolly has waived any argument that she was terminated involuntarily. NELF then contends that, even if Connolly had not waived her present argument, Morillo does not apply because the circumstances of that case are fundamentally different from the facts of this case and justify a different result. When Morillo volunteered to be laid off, a specific number of involuntary layoffs were imminent, so that he merely stepped into the shoes of a co-worker who would have been laid off involuntarily and would thereby have created a charge to the employer’s DUA account.  Moreover, Morillo, unlike Connolly, received no separation package. The Morillo court clearly relied on these two key facts in deciding that an award of benefits to Morillo would be “equitable” because it would be economically neutral in its effects on the employer while providing needed economic protection to Morillo. NELF urges the Court to decide that Connolly cannot share Morillo’s outcome because she does not share the crucial facts. NELF concludes by urging the Court not to abandon the fact-sensitive approach used by the courts up to now when deciding whether a voluntary termination should be deemed involuntary for “good cause attributable to the employer.”