“Good Cause Connected with the Work”: A Case Study of the Texas Workforce Commission’s Unemployment Benefits Process
Introduction
What happens when someone resigns from their workplace due to good cause related to their work? In other words, when an employee quits due to medical issues the employer is unable to accommodate, how does the agency tasked with administering unemployment benefits handle such cases? This side note explores my personal experience with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) and their unemployment benefits process as a former employee of the agency. This is a timely issue because TWC is currently under Sunset Advisory Commission review. The Staff Report was released on June 18, 2026. This experience is being shared because the same situation is happening to Texans across the state, and policymakers need to recognize inconsistent patterns where they exist. I am not advocating for my own case and the deadline for filing a civil suit has passed. For privacy purposes, some information is omitted from personal case documents. A more in-depth research series will be starting soon to explore agency dynamics regarding these types of cases in general.
When Leaving for Good Cause Turns Into a Burden
My employment with TWC started in November of 2021 where I worked as an evaluator of business and educational grants, while being promoted later to also manage small business grants, until medical issues made it impossible for me to continue at the job. My resignation email stated the departure was for medical reasons, and the agency had an extensive amount of records concerning my condition. It appeared everything was in order to receive unemployment benefits. However, I learned during the determination interview that the employer (TWC) was against awarding benefits. TWC initially denied my claim on the grounds that the separation was not considered good cause connected with the work, stating a doctor had not advised resignation and I had not provided evidence of longer being able to perform regular duties.
My reaction was disbelief because the determination did not make sense with all of the documentation Human Resources received: FMLA leave requests, requests for accommodation, information from physicians on medical inquiry forms, and my efforts to preserve the job. The knowledge of a worsening condition was readily accessible, and my claim was still denied. The law reference cited in the initial determination letter read partly:
Source: Texas Labor Code §207.045
My next option was to appeal the decision to the Appeal Tribunal since that was the next step in the appeals process.
A Long and Contradictory Appeals Process
The Appeal Tribunal stage involves sending documents to add to the record, providing any witnesses, and identifying other materials that may be relevant to the claim. I did not have a doctor explicitly tell me to resign, but discussions with my primary care internist and other medical professionals centered on the idea that staying in the situation would not be sustainable. To ensure this critical information was conveyed to the hearing officer, I included a two-page letter from my primary care internist which partly stated:
"...He has sought accommodation when appropriate and has taken every available measure to him in terms of treatment...It was only as a last resort that he finally made the decision to quit his job..."
-Excerpt from Primary Care Provider’s Letter
The Appeal Tribunal ruled in favor of the claim. In justifying its decision, the Tribunal relied on Commission precedent (Appeal No. 1206-CA-74), which states that when a claimant is separated from work due to illness or disability and has properly kept the employer informed of their condition, the separation is not considered voluntary under Section 207.045. No disqualification is imposed in such cases.
The decision partly stated:
"...Some accommodations were granted but they did not prove enough, and his leave was denied due to business needs. The claimant made numerous attempts to preserve his job but could not perform his job due to his disability regardless of accommodations. Because the claimant kept the employer informed of his illness, the Appeals Tribunal finds that he had good cause connected with the work to quit under Section 207.045 of the Act..."
-Excerpt from Appeal Tribunal Decision
Unfortunately, TWC appealed the decision. The case was then reviewed by the three Commissioners. My case was ordered for a rehearing, and information gathered would be sent back to the Commissioners for review. Part of the agency's argument against the affirmative finding at the tribunal level included statements concerning previous precedent. In its appeal to the Commission, TWC argued the Tribunal’s use of Appeal No. 1206-CA-74 was incorrect because the precedent was pregnancy-related and required the claimant to be physically unable to perform the job, whereas the claimant in this specific case was found to be physically able to work and had not been advised by a doctor to resign.
Information from the hearing was provided to the Commission, where the previous ruling was overturned by a majority vote. Reasons for the Commission's decision included most accommodations being fulfilled and a doctor not telling me to resign. By the end of the appeals process, I was initially found eligible for benefits, only to later be deemed ineligible and ordered to repay all benefits previously received.
The final option was a request for a rehearing, and the Commission's criteria for meeting the rehearing standard are found below in the denial letter. There was no reasoning behind their opinion that my motion did not meet the given criteria:
The End of an Eye-Opening Administrative Road
All administrative options with the agency came to a close. I chose not to pursue judicial review of the decision due to the way this type of case is handled at the court level. It is an uphill climb to receive an affirmative decision in court due to the substantial evidence standard. The agency is already in a position where the court defers to the final administrative ruling unless the substantial evidence standard is not met. The court does not conduct a full review of the evidence. A full definition of the substantial evidence standard (also used at the district level) is found below, along with an appellate court decision of a past claim detailing how a judicial review is conducted:
Definition from Wex, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School.
Spicer v. Texas Workforce Commission, No. 02-13-00433-CV.
Why This Case is Important to Policymakers
This situation demonstrates statutory language regarding "good cause connected with the work" exists, but there is inconsistency in its application. In my case, an inconsistency appeared across multiple areas in TWC when it comes to leaders’ viewpoints on medical documentation. Some in the agency look at medical situations with the broader view of a person having problems and doing their best to address a workplace challenge, and others apply a more narrow standard of needing certain paperwork at specific times. These decision frameworks collide on a regular basis and ultimately cause confusion and inefficiency.
At the individual level, this leads to ambiguity, uncertainty, and stress. At the agency level, it continues to cement the use of unclear policies and commits more resources that could be used elsewhere if there was clear statutory guidance.
Conclusion
I value policies and rules that are properly applied to all individuals. TWC’s handling of this program is not consistent, and it led to my research on Commission decisions regarding good cause quits. My hope in pulling this information together is to inform the highest decision-makers of what is occurring at the agency and advocate for policy changes.
For a factual study on these types of Commission decisions, please read my upcoming analysis on this issue. The research focuses on what the law states regarding voluntary leaving, how the Commissioners are not in agreement on what constitutes a good cause quit, and how this remains a lingering issue at the
For background on how unemployment insurance works as a federal-state program, see Unemployment Insurance, Part I.
About the Author
Blake Dodd is a policy analyst specializing in workforce programs, regulatory interpretation, and state program evaluation. He has experience advising on funding decisions affecting colleges and employers, with a background in legislative research and budget support in Texas and Louisiana. His writing focuses on how governmental systems implement policy and the importance of alignment with the original intent of a law or regulation.
Follow along on X, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram, and subscribe below for new field notes and analysis.
Share this Field Note
Help others understand how TWC handles good cause in medical separation cases.
Update: This article was revised on June 28, 2026 to improve clarity and to ensure that all Texas Workforce Commission materials are properly attributed in accordance with standard sourcing practices.