Quitting Over a Cooler: Lessons in Workplace Disputes and Legal Boundaries from Barriga v. AZ and Precision

  • Home
  • /
  • Blog
  • /
  • Quitting Over a Cooler: Lessons in Workplace Disputes and Legal Boundaries from Barriga v. AZ and Precision


In the case of “Barriga v. Arizona Department of Economic Security and Precision Auto Body LLC,” Pedro Barriga, an employee at Precision Auto Body, quit his job due to a dispute over the placement of a cooler in the workplace and alleged favoritism by his supervisor. The cooler in question was a mobile evaporative cooler, used for air cooling in the shop area where Pedro Barriga worked at Precision Auto Body LLC. The dispute arose over the positioning of one of these coolers, as Barriga and his coworker alternately moved it between their respective workstations to reduce the temperature at their individual work areas. This ongoing disagreement over the cooler’s placement was a key element in the conflict that led to Barriga quitting his job.


He applied for unemployment benefits, claiming he had good cause for quitting. However, the Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES) initially denied his claim, stating he didn’t prove he was working in an intolerable situation.


Barriga appealed, and the case went through various levels of appeal, including an administrative law judge (ALJ) who reversed the initial decision, and the ADES Appeals Board which again denied benefits. The Arizona Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed the case, focusing on the interpretation of “intolerable work situations” under state regulations and whether Barriga could raise new issues during the appeal.


The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the decision to deny Barriga unemployment benefits. They clarified that while the factors listed in the regulations for determining an intolerable work situation are not exhaustive, Barriga’s situation did not meet the threshold of being intolerable. They also concluded that he did not adequately attempt to adjust his grievance before quitting.


For employers, this case emphasizes the importance of addressing employee grievances fairly and transparently. It highlights the need for clear workplace policies and effective communication channels for employees to raise concerns. Employers should also be aware of the legal definitions and standards for working conditions and employee disputes to better manage such situations and avoid potential legal challenges.


Best practices include proactive conflict resolution, maintaining a fair and equitable work environment, and ensuring all employees are aware of their rights and the procedures for addressing workplace issues.

Log in or Register to save this content for later.