Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employment And Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Self‑represented claimant tells appeals court he left State Street due to health and alleged harassment; agency urges denial of benefits
Summary
In a DUA appeal, the claimant said negative performance reviews and stress triggered a medical crisis and resignation; the Department argued the review examiner reasonably found he did not take steps to preserve employment and did not prove discriminatory conduct warranted benefits.
The Appeals Court heard argument in an unemployment‑benefits appeal brought by Adam Mosherid (captioned Moocherite/Carter in the transcript, 24p364), who represented himself. Mosherid told the panel he learned of negative performance reviews only during an HR portal check in March 2022, experienced stress and palpitations, and resigned because he believed his health was at risk and that Human Resources could not be trusted based on prior experience.
Mosherid testified he had a documented history of heart problems and that after a March 15 meeting with his manager, Jesse Singh, he experienced anxiety and a three‑month course of therapy. He argued he need not take further steps to preserve employment under G.L. c. 151A, §25(e) because he alleged “repeated and pervasive discrimination” and unreasonable harassment that made further efforts futile.
Catherine Fahey, appearing for the Department of Unemployment Assistance, told the court the review examiner credited some dysfunction but reasonably concluded Mosherid had not shown involuntariness or urgent, necessitous reasons for leaving. The agency emphasized the claimant previously had taken a medical leave and that the record did not show contemporaneous reports of racial discrimination to HR or specific evidence that efforts to preserve employment would have been futile.
The panel questioned whether the review examiner needed to make explicit findings about discrimination and whether factual disputes about whether a second employee was designated manager required remand. The court received supplemental appendices and invited any further written submissions before taking the appeal under advisement.
