DaimlerChrysler Corp v Dirocco – 10.100

DaimlerChrysler Corp v Dirocco
Digest no. 10.100

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: DaimlerChrysler Corp v Dirocco, Unpublished Opinion of the Oakland County Circuit Court, Issued June 9, 2011 (Docket No. 10-115874-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Karen Dirocco
Employer: Daimler Chrysler Corporation
Docket no.: 10-115874-AE
Date of decision: June 9, 2011

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: The Board of Review erred in overturning the ALJ’s order disqualifying the Claimant from benefits as its decision is not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence and is contrary to controlling law.

FACTS: Claimant voluntarily quit her employment with DaimlerChrysler and filed for unemployment benefits. The ALJ found the Claimant giving inconsistent testimony and determined that there was not substantial evidence of good cause attributable to the employer for a voluntary termination of employment under Section 29(1)(a). On appeal, the Board of Review reversed the disqualification, finding that Claimant’s quit was with good cause attributable to the employer, not disqualifying her from unemployment benefits. Employer appealed the Board’s decision to the Circuit Court.

DECISION: The decision by the Board of Review is reversed in part; Claimant is disqualified from employment benefits.

RATIONALE: Since unemployment benefits are not designed to protect those voluntarily leaving employment, good cause attributable to the employer must be shown for an employee’s choice to leave. McArthur v. Borman’s, 200 Mich. App. 686 (1993). Good cause “exists where an employer’s actions would cause a reasonable, average and otherwise qualified worker to give up her employment. Carswell v. Share House, 151 Mich. App. 392 (1986).

In this case, the ALJ factfinder determined, after investigation, that there was not good cause for employee to voluntarily terminate her employment. In reviewing the case on appeal, the Board of Review misstated part of the Official Record, considered evidence not in the record, and improperly rejected the ALJ’s credibility determination without taking additional testimony. The Board of Review’s decision to overturn the ALJ’s decision was “not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence” and is contrary to controlling law.

Digest author: Nick Phillips
Digest updated: 8/14