Deborah K. May, a former "personal maid" for Massey Energy CEODon Blankenship, wants the West Virginia Supreme Court to give herunemployment benefits after she lost her job working atBlankenship's homes in West Virginia and Kentucky.
The high court was to hear arguments today about the dispute.
Lawyers for Mate Creek Security - the Massey subsidiary that paidMay's wages -argue May quit her job after Blankenship denied herrequests for a wage increase, health benefits for her children anduse of a company car.
May lost three different appeals for unemployment benefits beforethe state Bureau of Employment Programs and a fourth time beforeKanawha Circuit Judge James Stucky.
Kathryn Bayless, a Princeton lawyer representing May, and JeffreyFoster, with the Charleston firm of Spilman Thomas & Battlerepresenting Mate Creek Security, both filed legal briefs with theSupreme Court.
May's brief argues she came under increasing stress when her jobresponsibilities increased, but her wages and benefits remainedstagnant.
Mate Creek's brief argues May is not entitled to collectunemployment benefits because she left voluntarily after herrequests for wage and benefit increases were denied.
While working as a maid from May 4, 2001, to Nov. 18, 2005, May'shourly wages rose by 30 cents, from $8.56 an hour to $8.86 an hour.May also received overtime pay.
Blankenship told May "she was well paid in comparison to othersin West Virginia and Kentucky," the legal brief stated.
In December 2002, May's workload increased significantly whenBlankenship moved from his home in Sprigg, south of Williamson, totwo fairly large "business complex cabins" in Pike County, Ky.,after the maid there was fired, her brief said.
May did cleaning and laundry work for Blankenship and guests atthose locations. Then, in June 2003, Blankenship moved back toSprigg.
In 2004 and 2005, May was assigned additional duties, includingcleaning and stocking a "big coach bus" Blankenship purchased aswell as cleaning his new four-story house "on top of a humongoushill" above the Tug River.
May suffered increasing stress, her legal brief states, from "anincrease in duties as well as from the behavior of her employer."
The brief cites two occasions when Blankenship "physicallygrabbed" her.
One came after May went to McDonald's "to purchase breakfast forhim and his interior decorator.... As she unpacked the food, Mr.Blankenship discovered that McDonald's filled the order incorrectly.Mr. Blankenship started slinging the food and he grabbed Ms. May'swrist," the brief stated.
Another confrontation occurred on July 12, 2005, after May forgotto leave a coat hanger out for Blankenship to hang up his coat uponreturning from work.
"Blankenship's reaction was to tear the coat hanger and tie rackout of the closet," the brief stated.
Blankenship's secretary told May she "had to fix it and repair itand put everything back."
The brief concluded May "was required to accept ever-increasingduties and worked under conditions of treatment that remind one ofan earlier era in our history."
In its brief replying to May, Mate Creek emphasized that fourlegal "tribunals found that Ms. May left her job ... without goodcause involving fault on the part of Mate Creek.... May quit heremployment because Mate Creek refused to capitulate to her repeateddemands for a raise."
May, the brief noted, asked Blankenship for pay increases "on atleast five occasions."
On Nov. 18, 2005, May submitted an "ultimatum" that "she wouldquit unless the company gave her a 35 percent pay increase (to $12an hour), a company vehicle and additional free medical insurance,"the company's brief stated.
When Mate Creek did not immediately agree, the brief states, "shevoluntarily quit her employment and gave two weeks' notice."
The state Bureau of Employment Programs administrative law judgeruled "May was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensationbenefits because she voluntarily quit her employment without goodcause involving fault on the part of the employer," stated MateCreek's brief.
May quit because she felt "Blankenship did not appreciate herhard work," the ALJ wrote.
"However, mere dissatisfaction with one's job is insufficient tosupport a finding that she quit her job with good cause involvingfault on the part of the employer."
Mate Creek is asking the Supreme Court to uphold the earlierrulings denying unemployment benefits to May.
No comments:
Post a Comment