from an order denying a petition for judicial review in an
action for unemployment benefits. Eighth Judicial District
Court, Clark County; Valerie Adair, Judge.
Affirmed. Nevada Legal Services, Inc., and Dawn R. Miller,
Las Vegas, for Appellant.
L. Trotter, Senior Legal Counsel, Nevada Employment Security
Division, Carson City, for Respondents.
THE COURT EN BANC.
appeal, we consider whether submitting a resignation when
faced with a resign-or-be-fired option is a voluntary
resignation under NRS 612.380, thereby disqualifying an
individual from unemployment benefits. We hold that where the
record shows that the appellant's decision to resign was
freely given and stemming from his own choice, such a
resignation is voluntary pursuant to NRS 612.380-
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision to
deny judicial review.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Eugenio Dolores filed an appeal after respondent, the
Employment Security Division (ESD), denied his claim for
unemployment benefits under NRS 612.380. Dolores worked at
the airport as a ground agent for Southwest Airlines for over
seven years. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
requires airport employees to wear a Security Identification
Display Area (SIDA) badge, which must be renewed every year.
In July 2015, TSA altered its SIDA badge policy and, under
this new policy, TSA improperly confiscated Dolores's
badge based on a misunderstanding of a previous criminal
conviction. Dolores contested this revocation, and his
employer, Southwest Airlines, granted him ten days' leave
to resolve the matter. When this time lapsed and Dolores had
not been reissued a SIDA badge, Southwest informed Dolores
that he could either resign or he would be fired. Dolores
subsequently submitted a letter of resignation.
proceeded to file a claim for unemployment insurance benefits
with ESD. An ESD claims adjudicator denied Dolores's
claim based on NRS 612.380, stating that Dolores resigned
from his "employment in anticipation of being discharged
or laid off' and therefore voluntarily resigned. Dolores
appealed the decision. An administrative referee ultimately
denied the claim, finding that Dolores voluntarily resigned
under NRS 612.380. Dolores appealed the referee's
decision to the Board of Review, which affirmed the
referee's decision. Dolores then filed a petition for
judicial review in district court, which was denied. Dolores
now appeals to this court.
argues that pursuant to NRS 612.380, his resignation was not
voluntary and was for good cause because he was told he could
resign or be fired. We disagree.
we address whether Dolores voluntarily resigned under NRS
612.380. "This court reviews questions of statutory
construction and the district court's legal conclusions
de novo. In interpreting a statute, this court will look to
the plain language of its text and construe the statute
according to its fair meaning and so as not to produce
unreasonable results." J. Cox Constr. Co., LLC v.
CH2Invs., LLC, 129 Nev. 139, 142, 296 P.3d 1202, 1203
(2013) (internal citations omitted). Nevada has not yet
defined "voluntary" for purposes of unemployment
benefits; however, other jurisdictions have defined it as
"a decision to quit that is freely given and proceeding
from one's own choice or full consent." 76 Am. Jur.
2d Unemployment Compensation § 104 (2016)
(citing Thompson v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins.
Comm'n, 85 S.W.3d 621 (Ky. Ct. App. 2002), and
Ward v. Acoustiseal, Inc., 129 S.W.3d 392
(Mo.Ct.App. 2004)). Applying that definition to Dolores's
case, the question here is whether Dolores's decision to
resign was freely given despite the fact that he was given a
Nevada has not yet addressed unemployment benefits in the
"resign-or-be-fired" context, we look to how other
jurisdictions have addressed the issue. In Thomas v.
District of Columbia Department of Labor, the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia held that in a
quit-or-be-fired situation, "it is not proper to take
such a quit, tendered in lieu of termination, out of its
context and regard it as dispositive on the issue of
voluntariness for unemployment benefits determination
purposes." 409 A.2d 164, 170 (D.C. 1979) (acknowledging
the benefits both employees and employers gain from such an
agreement). The Thomas court concluded that a
claimant who was previously threatened with termination,
instructed to train her replacement ...