Walsh v First Metropolitan Title – 10.82

Walsh v First Metropolitan Title
Digest no. 10.82

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Walsh v First Metro Title, unpublished opinion of the Oakland Circuit Court, issued January 26, 1998 (Docket No. 97-551063-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Kathleen Walsh
Employer: First Metropolitan Title
Docket no.: B97-01169-RO1-144003W
Date of decision: January 26, 1998

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: The claimant’s immediate termination by the employer is disqualifying under Section 29(1)(a) when the claimant failed to provide a two week notice and was uncooperative when asked if the claimant had accepted employment with a competitor.

FACTS: The claimant worked as a title examiner for the involved employer. On September 17, 1996, the claimant informed the employer she was resigning to accept employment with another title company effective September 20, 1996. The employer was concerned the claimant was going to work for a competitor, and asked the claimant where she was going, but she declined to disclose the identity of the new employer. The employer indicated there is a lot of pirating of employees in this industry. The employer discharged the claimant immediately pursuant to its practice to accept an employee’s resignation as immediately effective when the employee refuses to disclose the identity of the new employer.

DECISION: The claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits under Section 29(1)(a) of the Michigan Employment Security Act.

RATIONALE: The court noted the Referee distinguished this matter from Stephen’s Nu-Ad, Inc v Green, 168 Mich App 219 (1988), because the claimant did not give the employer the benefit of a two week notice. The court stated “[i]t appears from the record that [claimant]’s poor handling of her resignation, including her failure to give her employer the courtesy of a two week notice, and the fact that she appeared to be going to work for a competitor led to her termination on September 17, 1996.” The court found those facts supported the conclusion that the claimant’s separation was “the result of an unrestrained, volitional, freely chosen or willful action on her part.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 
7/99