ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION - Appeal 24A-UI-02286-SN

Sep 14, 2026

Administrative Law Judge decision addresses Theresa M. Bettinson’s appeal in an Iowa unemployment insurance matter, concerning denial of benefits following her voluntary resignation from Walmart Inc. The document outlines the hearing notice, participation, and evidentiary rulings, then analyzes timeliness under Iowa Code and Iowa Administrative Code provisions. It considers whether the appeal was filed within required deadlines and whether circumstances justify any delay, alongside classification of the separation for unemployment eligibility.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages7

Reading Time3 min

AccessFree to download

Statement of the Case

Issues

Findings of Fact

Reasoning and Conclusions of Law

IN THE IOWA ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DIVISION UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BUREAU | THERESA M BETTINSON
Claimant
WALMART INC
Employer | APPEAL 24A-UI-02286-SN
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
OC: 10/08/23
Claimant: Appellant (2) | | --- | --- | Iowa Code § 96 .5( 1)– Voluntary Quit Iowa Admin. Code r. 871-24.26(4)– Intolerable working conditions STATEMENT OF THE CASE: The claimant, Theresa M. Bettinson, filed an appeal from the December 12 , 2023 , (reference 06) unemployment insurance decision that denied benefits based upon her voluntary resignation. The parties were properly notified about the hearing. An in-person hearing at the IowaWORKS at 2508 4th Street in Sioux City, Iowa 51101 on March 18 , 2024 , at 11:00 a. m. The claimant participated and testified. The employer participated through Front End Coach Jamaal Dean. The employer was represented by Thomas Durso, an unemployment insurance representative. Exhibits D1 and D2 were received into the record. The employer’s proposed exhibits were not accepted into evidence because they were not sent to the claimant to be compliant with Iowa Admin. Code r. 871-26.15. ISSUES: Whether the claimant’s appeal is untimely? Whether the claimant was excused from meeting the appeal deadline due to circumstances beyond her control? Was the separation a layoff, discharge for misconduct or voluntary quit without good cause attributable to the employer? FINDINGS OF FACT: Having reviewed all of the evidence in the record, the administrative law judge finds: The claimant was employed full-time as a facility maintenance from October 24 , 2023 , until she was separated from employment on November 19 , 2023 , when she quit. The claimant’s immediate supervisor was Front Desk Jamaal Dean. At the time of her hire, Mr. Dean promised the claimant that she would receive full-time work in this role. He also promised that she would be able to work from 7:00 a. m. to 4:00 p. m. during the week. The claimant needed that schedule because she uses the bus to commute. Buses do Page 2 Appeal 24A-UI-02286-SN not run later in the day. The claimant made separate arrangements to get her to work on the weekends, which was to be infrequent. The facility maintenance job description includes attempting to unclog toilets. Management has a practice that if the facility maintenance team member is unable to unclog the toilet, then management can call a third party team to do it. This practice was not well known by subordinates. Early in her term of employment, the claimant told Mr. Dean that a toilet in the back was overflowing. Mr. Dean told the claimant to try to unclog the toilet with a plunger. In the second week on the job, the claimant noticed she was being scheduled to work after 4:00 p. m. for the third week. This occurs due to the employer’s scheduling software. Mr. Dean told the claimant that she could leave to get her bus, but this also reduced her hours. The claimant was only able to work 20 hours in the third week on the job. The claimant also complained about her assigned schedule to the human resources department three times. On November 19 , 2023 , the claimant discovered overflowing toilets in both of the men’s and women’s bathrooms. The claimant panicked because standing water was coming up over her shoes. Worse still, no one in management was there to help her with the situation. The claimant spoke to Team Lead Maria Garcia. The claimant threw her vest down. She said, “Sorry, but I am going.” The claimant then walked off the job before the end of her shift. Management called a company to augur out the pipes behind the walls of both bathrooms which was causing the backup. The following section of the findings of facts displays information necessary to resolve the timeliness issue: A disqualification decision was mailed to the claimant's address of record on December 12 , 2023. The claimant did not receive the decision. ( Exhibit D1) The c

FAQs

Why did the employer’s proposed exhibits not enter the record?

The proposed exhibits were not accepted because they were not sent to the claimant in a compliant manner under Iowa Admin. Code r. 871-26.15.

Sep 14, 2026

Uploaded by Olivia Brown