IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
PHILSBERT CODRINGTON )
Petitioner; CIVIL NO sx 2010 CV 00102
V l PETITION FOR W RlT OF REVIEW
GME DOSPlVA LLC and VIRGIN ISLANDS l
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR )
Respondents ; 2023 VI SUPER 80U
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
{:1 B) Order enteled June 22 2010 ( Order Granting Writ ) the Coult granted
Appellant Philsbert Codrington s petition f01 writ of review, titled Notice of Appeal (herein
Petition ) timely filed on March 4 2010 I The Petition sought relieffiom the February 3 2010
Decision of the Administlative law Judge ( ALJ’) affilming (on other gtounds) the initial
determination of the Adjudicator within the Division of Unemployment Insurance of Respondent
Virgin Islands Department of 1 abor ( DOL or Depaltment ) Thelein in deciding Petitionel
C0dringt0n 5 internal appeal 01 the Adjudicator s determination to deny C0drington 5 application
for unemployment benefits the AL] found that Codrington was not disqualified from leceixing
benefits due to misconduct but concluded that Codrington had toltlntarily quit his job without
good cause and was [hetefore ineligible to receive unemp10)ment insutance benefits Respondent
GME Dospiva Ll C ( 0MP ) filed an Opposition to the Petition for Writ of Review on Ma), 21
2010 denied by the Order Granting Wlit The Olden Granting W1 it did not set a briefing schedule
Petitioner filed no brief to supplement the g1 ounds for seeking rex iew set out in the Petition and
l The Orden Glanting Writ required the Department of Labor to produce a transcript of the above
mentioned case within sixty davs B) lettel of August 1.: 2010 the Department of Labor transmitted its
original file and original transcript Unemplo)ment lnsmance benefit Appeal Hearing
?hzlsbert Codrmgton v GME Dospna LLC and Dept ofLabor SX 2010 CV 00102
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 2 0f 7 2023 VI SUPER 801)
neither Respondent filed a brief For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that the AL] 5
Decision is supported in the record by substantial evidence and will affirm the Decision 2
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
$2 On March 4 2010, Petitioner filed his Petition asking the Court to review and
vacate the ALJ 5 February 03 2010 Decision in PHIL S'BER T CODRINGTOV V OMB D09PIVA
LLC (VI App No 016 02 10) The record3 shows that GME hired Codrlngton to work full time
as a C A D operator in August 2007 On September 22 2009 Codrington informed GME 3 owner
and manager, Brent Whitney, that he would be late for work and that he wanted to speak with him
Codrington arrived at work at 9 a m but was unable to perform any work duties upon arrival
because he was too mentally distressed due to personal matters Whitney arrived at the office
around 11 am and observed that Codrington was not executing any assignments for work
Subsequently Whitney pulled a folder from Codrington’s project files, and placed it on
C0drington’s desk stating that he had work for Codrington to complete Codrington testified that
Whitney slammed the file folder on his desk scattering the papers within Whitney then left the
office through the door near Codrington s desk Codrington testified that Whitney slammed the
door as he lefi the building Offended by what he perceived as disrespect, C0drington followed
Whitney to GME 5 parking lot where Codrington and Whitney engaged in a verbal exchange
2 After this matter had lain dormant without action by any party for several years, by letter of February 19,
2021, requesting response within 30 days, the C lerk of the Court inquired of Petitioner whether he intended
to proceed with his appeal The letter, sent certified mail, return receipt requested was returned by the U S
Postal Service with the notation “3/21/21 Return to Sender, Unclaimed; Unable to Forward ” Petitioner
did not respond to the Clerk’s letter Thereafter, by Order entered January 9, 2023, the Court ordered
Petitioner to show cause in writing within 14 days why his Petition should not be dismissed for lack of
prosecution pursuant to V I R Civ P 41(b) That Order was sent certified mail, and the receipt was
returned to the Court on January 27, 2023, signed by Petitioner The Order was also personally served on
Petitioner by the Office of Virgin Islands Marshal on January 25, 2023 Petitioner has filed nothing in
response to the Court’s Order Despite that failure in light of the fact that “there is a strong public policy
in the Virgin Islands for determining civil cases on the merits, Robertson v Banco Popular De P R , 2023
v13 11 37 (v1 2023) citing the
Court wi11 review the Petition on its merits rather than enter a dismissal for lack of prosecution
‘ The “record” in the instant case includes letters exchanged between Cedrington and GME owner and
manager Brent Whitney, admitted as exhibits at the hearing, the initial determination by the Department of
Labor’s Adjudicator the transcript of the proceedings before the AL], and the ALJ’s February 03, 2010
Decision
[’hllsbert Codrington v GME Dospzva LLC and Dept ofLabor SX 2010 CV 00102
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 3 of 7 2023 V1 SUPER 80U
During the argument, Codrington uttered profane language to Whitney and at some point said, ‘if
you don’t want me here, I m out of here ’
113 According to Whitney, upon hearing this proclamation, he advised Codrington that
if he left the premises, it would be regarded as a voluntary resignation Codrington admits he heard
that statement by Whitney but testified that Whitney told him to get the hell out of here and that
his response was, you don’t have to tell me twice ” in addition to saying, if you don’t want me
here, I m out of here ’ At the conclusion of the verbal exchange, Codrington gathered his personal
items and left GME’s premises Codrington believed he was terminated notwithstanding the fact
that he conceded that Whitney never expressly said ‘ you re fired ’ during the confrontation
134 On October 2, 2009, Codrington and Whitney spoke briefly when Codrington went
to pick up his final paycheck During that encounter, nothing was mentioned regarding the
September 22, 2009 incident After that date Codrington attempted to call Whitney several times,
but his phone calls were not returned Finally on October 15, 2009, Whitney wrote a letter of
termination to Codrington
15 On October 5, 2009, Codrington filed for unemployment insurance benefits On
December 9, 2009 an Adjudicator determined that Codrington was not entitled to receive
unemployment insurance benefits because his actions as reported by GME, pursuant to V I Code
Ann tit 24, § 304(b)(3) were a deliberate disregard of the standards of behavior [his] employer
had a right to expect of [him] ” Disagreeing with the Adjudicator s decision, Codrington filed a
notice of appeal under § 306(b) on December 16, 2009
116 On January 26, 2010 AL! Jamelia John Baptiste presided over the hearing and
heard testimony from two individuals Philsbert Codrington Jr and Brent Whitney After hearing
the testimony and considering the evidence, on February 2, 2010 the ALJ issued her Decision
finding that Codrington was not terminated for misconduct under § 304(b)(3) but rather that
Codrington voluntarin quit his position without good cause under § 304(b)(2) as interpreted by
Cunnmgham v V! Unemployment Security Agency 20 VI 214 216 (D VI 1983) Codrington
filed his Petition on March 4 2010
Phllsbert Codrmgton v GME Dosplva LLC and Dept ofLabor SX 2010 CV 00102
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 4 017 2023 V1 SUPER 80U
117 In his Petition Petitioner contends that the ALJ s conclusions that (l) he voluntarily
quit his job and (2) that he did so Without good cause under § 304(b)(2) were unsupportable based
on the substantial evidence of the record as a whole
LEGAL STANDARD
118 V 1 Code Ann tit 24 § 306(c)(1)a110ws a party aggn'eved by a hearing examiner's
decision to ‘initiate[ ] judicial review by filing in the [Superior] Court of the Virgin Islands a
petition for review within 30 days after the hearing examiner’s deeision has been mailed to each
party's last known address or otherwise delivered to him Id § 306(c)(1) Codrington timely filed
the Petition on March 4 2010 Therefore, the Superior Court has jurisdiction over the Department
of Labor ALJ 8 February 2 2010 Decision
$9 In granting a petition for review under § 306(c)(1), the reviewing court’s
jurisdiction ‘ shall be confined to questions of law and in the absence of fraud, the findings of fact
by the hearing examiner, if supported by substantial evidence regardless of statutory or common
law rules, shall be conclusive ’ § 306(e)(3)
1110 Where the Legis1ature has not explicitly required courts to apply a more deferential
standard of review, the Superior Coutt exercises plenary review of an agency’s conclusions of law
Bryan v Fawkes 61 VI 201 226 27 (VI 2014) In the instant case because the Legislature did
not require a specific standard of review under § 306(c)(3) for the ALJ’s conclusions of law the
Court reviews those determinations de novo However § 306(c)(3) does reqmre that the Superior
Court review all factual conclusions under the substantial evidence standard
DISCUSSION
A The ALJ’s finding that Codrington quit his job is based on substantial evidence
1111 C0drington contends that the ALJ’s conclusion that he voluntari1y quit his job was
not based on substantial evidence
1112 The Court finds that the ALJ's determination that Codrington voluntarily quit his
job was based on substantial ev1dence Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conc1usion ’ Virgm Islands Coalmon 0f
Cztzzens With Disabzlztzes Inc /S't Thomas v Government of the Virgin Islands, 47 VI 315 320
Philsbert Codrmgton v GME Dospzva LLC and Dept ofLabor SX 2010 CV 00102
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 5 of 7 2023 VI SUPER 80U
21 (VI Super 2005) (quoting Black 3 Law Dictionary (8th ed 1999)) If no reasonable fact finder
could make [a particular] finding on the administrative record ’ then an administrative record IS
not based on substantial evidence Dza v Ashcroft, 353 F 3d 228, 249 (3d Cir 2003) Furthermore
simply because the Court could reach a different conclusion based on the factual record before it
does not mean that the record is unsupported by substantial evidence ConmIo v. Federal Marztzme
Commzsszon 383 U S 607, 619 (1966) Therefore, substantial evidence allows for the possibility
of drawing two inconsistent conclusions ’ I/I Coalttzon of Cztzzens wzth Dwabzlmes Inc /St
Thomas 12 Govt ofthe Wrgm Islands
47 VI 315 320 (V1 Super 2005) Accordingly so long as
an administrative decision is supported by substantial evidence it is not subject to reversal simply
because it might also support a contradictory finding Port Norm Exp Co Inc v I C C
697 F 2d
497 (3rd Cir 1982)
1113 When the Court applies the substantial evidence test, it is required to consider the
‘ whole record ” La Vallee NorthSIde CIVIC Ass n v Virgm Iclands Bd ofLand Use Appeals, 30 VI
9 16 (VI Terr 1994) (quoting Umverval Camera Corp v NLRB 340 U S 474 (1951)) In other
words, the Court must do more than simply find ajustification for the agency’s decision, it must
also determine whether the agency’s ruling was reasonable in light of all the evidence presented
Id ‘The substantiality ofthe evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts
from its weight Government of the Virgin Islands v Public Employee Relatzons Board
22 VI
12 23 (VI Terr 1986) Finally, when the Court reviews an agency record for lack of substantial
evidence, it must be conscious of the ALJ s opportunity to appraise the credibillty and consider the
weight of the evidence in the first instance 11am De Velez » I 1; gm Islands Dept of Lab
Memorandum Opinion and Order No ST 13 CV 268 at 3 (VI Super July 25 2018)
$14 Here the ALJ heard and considered the testimony of two individuals Petitioner
Philsbert Codrington, and Brent Whitney, Respondent GME’s owner and manager The record
shows that at the hearing, both Codrington and Whitney were permitted to speak at length about
their recollection of the events preceding and following the September 22, 2009 incident At one
point during the hearing, the ALJ even admonished Whitney for interrupting Codrington as he
testified The ALJ heard Codrington corroborate the fact that Whitney did indeed say that if he left
the premises, it would be regarded as a “voluntary resignation ” Finally, the AL} heard Codrington
state, under oath, that he never heard Whitney expressly say ‘ you are fired ’ in the parking lot The
Philsbeit Codrmg10n v GME Dospzva LLC and Dept ofLabor SX 2010 CV 00102
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 6 0f 7 2023 Vi SUPER 80U
testimony and documentary evidence cons1dered by the ALJ, coupled with the AL] 5 corroboration
0f the facts during direct examination of both parties at the hearing, supports the AL] 5 conclusion
that Codrington voluntarily quit his job, and a reasonable person could reach the same conclusion
if presented with the same evidence
B Codrington voluntarily quit his job without good cause under section 304(b)(2)
1115 In his Petition Codrington contends that the AL] failed to follow the statutory
construction outlined in section § 304 (b)(2) Codrington contends that the AL] erred in concluding
that he left his position without good cause despite making a finding that Codrington 3 personal
situation exacerbated his reactions towards Whitney
516 VI Code Ann tit 24, § 304(b)(2) disqualifies an insured worker from receiving
waiting week credit or benefits for any week of his employment if he left his most recent suitable
work voluntarily Without good cause ” However if the circumstances produce pressure to
terminate employment that is both real and substantial and would compel a reasonable person
under the circumstances to act in the same manner, the claimant has “good cause’ to ‘leave” a
job within the meaning of 24 VI C § 304(b)(2) Taylor v Unemployment Compensation Board of
Rewew 378 A 2d 829 832 33 (Pa 1977) (construing a similarly worded statute) That is the fact
that the claimant for unemployment benefits is the one who commences the termination, and he
does so of his own accord w1thout being fired or otherwise pressured by an employer to quit, does
not necessarily preclude a finding of “good cause” under the terms of most unemployment
schemes Cunnmgham v V] Empl S'ec Agency, 20 VI at 216—17 Although a subjective
dissatisfaction with working conditions or wages is not enough to show good cause, a claimant
could be justified in voluntarily separating from his or her employment where the discontent is
based upon a substantial change in wages or working conditions that would make the work no
longer suitable for the claimant considering the claimant s qualifications, earning ability, physical
fitness and the like Id at 217
1i] 7 In the instant case, the record shows that it was in fact Codrington who unilateraily
initiated a substantial change in his own work conditions by reducing his working hours below
fulltime, to the detriment of his employer GME The record shows that Codrington’s employer
was making a good, and ostensibly sincere effort to accommodate the changes and issues
Philsbert Codrmgton t GME Dospzva LLC and Dept ofLabor SX 2010 CV 00102
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 7 of 7 2023 VI SUPER 80U
Codrington was experiencing in his personal life and that Whitney as manager and owner, was
only asking Codrington to return to fulltime status and learn new skills that would likely benefit
Codrington’s future career prospects as a C A D operator While it is apparent from the
jurisprudence that the initiation of termination by an employee is not in and of itself sufficient to
render his resignation as one ‘ without cause,” it is equally clear from the jurisprudence that the
underlying reasons for the separation must stem from changes in working condltions, not changes
in an employee 3 personal circumstances Here, it was Codrington’s work habits and work quality
that changed, not the working conditions nor the wages that GME was offering him Therefore,
Codrington did not have good cause to quit under the meaning of § 304(b)(2) and, accordingly, the
AL} did not err in finding that he left his position without good cause In light of the foregoing, it
is hereby
ORDERED that the decision in the matter PHIL ?BERT C ()DRINGTOV V. GME
D09PIVA LLC (V 1 App No 016 02 10) is AFFIRMED It is further
ORDERED that Petitioner 3 Petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUIDCE It is further
ORDERED that this case is CLOSED
DATED December 3‘ 2023 Q W
DOUGLAS A BRADY J GE
ATTEST
TAMARA CHARLES
Cierk of the Co
By é%: fl—
Court Clerk pervisor
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
District of St. Croix
PHILSBERT CODRINGTON, Case Number: SX-2010-CV-00102
Petitioner, Action: Writ of Review
v.
GME DOSPIVA LLC AND
COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR,
Respondents.
NOTICE of ENTRY
of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
To: Philsbert Codrington, pro se
Michael R. Francisco, Esq., AAG
H.A. Curt Otto, Esq.
Please take notice that on December 21, 2023
a(n) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
dated December 21, 2023 was/were entered
by the Clerk in the above-titled matter.
Dated: December 21, 2023 Tamara Charles
Clerk of the Court
By:
Cheryl Parris
Court Clerk III