Engel v Derthick Associates, Inc – 10.17

Engel v Derthick Associates, Inc
Digest no. 10.17

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Engel v Derthick Assoc, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Oakland Circuit Court, issued July 6, 1979 (No. 78-179125 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Blanche Engel
Employer: Derthick Associates, Inc.
Docket no.: B77 875 55320
Date of decision: July 6, 1979

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where an employee is not permitted to withdraw a resignation after the employer has hired a replacement, the claimant is disqualified for voluntary leaving.

FACTS: The claimant gave notice of leaving her employment. She later attempted to withdraw her resignation, but the employer had already hired a replacement. The employer allowed the resignation to stand as submitted.

DECISION: The claimant is disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: “The referee apparently concluded that claimant was estopped to withdraw her resignation because the employer had placed advertisements, had interviewed, and in fact had hired claimant’s replacement. The question of estoppel is essentially a question of fact, Pursell v Wolverine-Pentronix, Inc, 44 Mich App 416, 420 (1973).”

“Once an employee knowingly and voluntarily sets in motion processes which ultimately result in her replacement, she cannot reasonably expect those processes to grind to a halt because she changes her mind. Certainly it is the policy of the Employment Security Act to minimize the effects of unemployment. However, the Act cannot be so broadly construed as to require businesses to be run at the whims of the employees. The Act was never intended to make employers into social welfare agencies. Thus, once an employer, such as Derthick in this case, begins to act on an employee’s resignation, that employer cannot be required to honor an employee’s attempt to withdraw a resignation.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 11/90