Risk of Exposure to Toxic Hazards in the Workplace and the Unemployment Compensation System: Proposing a Rebuttable Presumption of Good Cause
By Daniel V. Johns
INTRODUCTION
Elizabeth Lynch leaned back in her desk chair and sighed, overwhelmed by the smell. As the air vent in her office emitted chemical fumes, Elizabeth counted back and realized this was the fifth such instance in just the last month. Connected to the office complex where Elizabeth worked, the company's manufacturing plant used many chemicals in its manufacturing process. Some of these chemicals required strict safety procedures to prevent employee exposure. “Not strict enough,” thought Elizabeth, as the fumes permeated her office.
Becoming light-headed, Elizabeth stood and opened her door, anxious for some fresh air. Although the smell slowly dissipated, Elizabeth's health and safety concerns lingered. She knew that the chemicals used in the manufacturing process were toxic. Several of her friends working in the plant had shown her the manufacturer's warning inserts. When Elizabeth informed her supervisor of the problem, however, he shrugged off any suggestion of danger. “You have nothing to worry about,” he said. “Any fumes that might possibly get through aren't concentrated enough to harm you.”
Yet Elizabeth was not reassured. The smell had been concentrated enough to make her dizzy, and the inserts warned of possible future health effects. She did not want to breathe those fumes, and the company had never tested the air quality in her office. She knew that the company had no plans to conduct such a test or to redesign the ventilation system. Elizabeth realized that if she did not want to breathe the fumes, she would have to quit her job.
Moving back into her office, Elizabeth sat down and shook her head. She needed her job; her family needed her income. “If I quit now,” she mused, “who knows how long it will be before I can find another job?” But she wondered whether keeping her job was worth the risks to her health. Returning to work, Elizabeth bristled at her lack of options.
Like the fictional Elizabeth Lynch, millions of Americans are exposed to toxic hazards in their places of employment every workday. One study estimates that 390,000 workers contract serious occupation-related diseases each year. Many more workers suffer less serious maladies as a result of such exposure.
This Note examines the treatment under the unemployment compensation system (UC system) of job terminations resulting from employees' attempts to avoid the health risks associated with exposure to toxic hazards in the workplace. Part II explains the inability of current federal environmental laws to address the risks of toxic hazards in the workplace. Part III discusses the UC system generally, focusing on the structure and incentives under the current system, as well as the prerequisites for the receipt of benefits and the most common reasons for disqualification. Part IV details the nature of toxic hazards, illustrating that employees who quit their jobs to avoid the health risks of exposure to such hazards will often not be qualified to receive benefits under the UC system. Part V proposes an equitable solution to the problem of toxic hazards under the UC system: a statutory rebuttable presumption of good cause that shifts the burden of proving the safety of the work environment to the employer in toxic hazard cases. Part VI concludes that adopting this rebuttable presumption will accomplish the twin social goals of preserving the health and welfare of workers, while creating working environments free from toxic hazards.
Elizabeth Lynch leaned back in her desk chair and sighed, overwhelmed by the smell. As the air vent in her office emitted chemical fumes, Elizabeth counted back and realized this was the fifth such instance in just the last month. Connected to the office complex where Elizabeth worked, the company's manufacturing plant used many chemicals in its manufacturing process. Some of these chemicals required strict safety procedures to prevent employee exposure. “Not strict enough,” thought Elizabeth, as the fumes permeated her office.
Becoming light-headed, Elizabeth stood and opened her door, anxious for some fresh air. Although the smell slowly dissipated, Elizabeth's health and safety concerns lingered. She knew that the chemicals used in the manufacturing process were toxic. Several of her friends working in the plant had shown her the manufacturer's warning inserts. When Elizabeth informed her supervisor of the problem, however, he shrugged off any suggestion of danger. “You have nothing to worry about,” he said. “Any fumes that might possibly get through aren't concentrated enough to harm you.”
Yet Elizabeth was not reassured. The smell had been concentrated enough to make her dizzy, and the inserts warned of possible future health effects. She did not want to breathe those fumes, and the company had never tested the air quality in her office. She knew that the company had no plans to conduct such a test or to redesign the ventilation system. Elizabeth realized that if she did not want to breathe the fumes, she would have to quit her job.
Moving back into her office, Elizabeth sat down and shook her head. She needed her job; her family needed her income. “If I quit now,” she mused, “who knows how long it will be before I can find another job?” But she wondered whether keeping her job was worth the risks to her health. Returning to work, Elizabeth bristled at her lack of options.
Like the fictional Elizabeth Lynch, millions of Americans are exposed to toxic hazards in their places of employment every workday. One study estimates that 390,000 workers contract serious occupation-related diseases each year. Many more workers suffer less serious maladies as a result of such exposure.
This Note examines the treatment under the unemployment compensation system (UC system) of job terminations resulting from employees' attempts to avoid the health risks associated with exposure to toxic hazards in the workplace. Part II explains the inability of current federal environmental laws to address the risks of toxic hazards in the workplace. Part III discusses the UC system generally, focusing on the structure and incentives under the current system, as well as the prerequisites for the receipt of benefits and the most common reasons for disqualification. Part IV details the nature of toxic hazards, illustrating that employees who quit their jobs to avoid the health risks of exposure to such hazards will often not be qualified to receive benefits under the UC system. Part V proposes an equitable solution to the problem of toxic hazards under the UC system: a statutory rebuttable presumption of good cause that shifts the burden of proving the safety of the work environment to the employer in toxic hazard cases. Part VI concludes that adopting this rebuttable presumption will accomplish the twin social goals of preserving the health and welfare of workers, while creating working environments free from toxic hazards.
