Denying unemployment insurance benefits based on a finding the individual left work without good cause
Williams v NYC General Services, App. Div., 256 AD2d 792
Rodriguez v Commissioner of Labor, App. Div., 256 AD2d 768
One basis for denying an individual unemployment insurance benefits is a finding that the applicant left his or her employment “without good cause.” The Williams and Rodriguez decisions involve determinations as to what constitutes leaving employment “without good cause.”
The Williams case
Carlton A. Williams, employed as a real property manager the New York City’s Office of General Services, decided to accept the city’s offer of an “early retirement package” instead of facing a scheduled disciplinary hearing for alleged misconduct.
Williams’ decision was based on a statement made by the “case conferencing judge at a prehearing conference” that if Williams decided to go forward with the hearing and the administrative law judge found him guilty, “he would discharged from his employment and would lose the employer’s contributions to his pension.” Williams elected to resign rather than risk dismissal. When the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board rejected his application for unemployment insurance benefits, Williams appealed. The Appellate Division sustained the board’s determination.
The court said that “neither resigning in anticipation of discharge nor voluntarily separating from one’s employment in order to accept an early retirement incentive package when continuing work is available have been held to constitute good cause for leaving employment.”
The Rodriguez case
Usually leaving employment to relocate to another state in order to remain with one’s family will not disqualify an individual for unemployment insurance benefits. In Rodriguez’s case, the Appellate Division found there were mitigating circumstances sufficient to justify reversing the Unemployment Insurance Board’s rejection of her application for benefits.
In November 1995 Evelyn R. Rodriguez, a state disability claims examiner, remained behind when her husband and two daughters moved to Florida on the advice of their pediatrician, because her children had severe and chronic asthma. Rodriguez stayed because her employment was the source of the family’s health insurance, the family’s house had to be sold, she needed to continue to earn income and she wanted additional membership credit in the retirement system.
In August 1996, Rodriguez resigned and joined her family in Florida. The board, in rejecting her claim for benefits, held that she had “decided to live apart from her family indefinitely, if not permanently.” This, said the board, meant that she was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her job without good cause.
In reversing, the Appellate Division ruled that “the instant case is not a situation where a spouse is trying to decide if she will quit her job and join her transferred spouse.” Instead, said the court, “two parents have endured real hardship for the well-being of their children.”
Both spouses, said the court, had good cause to relocate to Florida, which was as compelling in August 1996 when Rodriguez resigned as the previous October when her husband moved to Florida with their children.
Essentially the court held that Rodriguez “from the outset” intended to relocate to Florida and that her uncertainty as to when she would do so was justified.
NYPPL