Gallant v W B Doner Co – 7.33

Gallant v W B Doner Co
Digest no. 7.33

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Gallant v WB Doner Co, unpublished opinion of the Oakland County Circuit Court, issued January 4, 1995 (Docket No. 94-476350-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Jeri Gallant
Employer: W.B. Doner Co.
Docket no.: B92-02016-122380W
Date of decision: January 4, 1995

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where claimant placed undue restrictions on where she would work and what type of work she would do, she made herself unavailable within the meaning of the statute.

FACTS: Claimant suffers from agoraphobia (fear of being in open or public places) and advised the MESC that there were limitations on where she would seek or accept employment. She was held ineligible due to her failure to establish unrestricted availability. She had a “comfort zone” of locations she was willing to work in and that zone did not include the Detroit metropolitan area. Furthermore, claimant was qualified to do advertising work but was only seeking work in retail because she wanted to make a career change.

DECISION: Claimant is ineligible for benefits under Section 28(1)(c).

RATIONALE: Claimant was desirous of obtaining employment but restricted her availability for certain types of work which she was qualified to perform and restricted the geographical locations to which she was willing to travel. She only wanted to work in communities that were familiar to her. She did not seek advertising work for which she was qualified and limited her job search to certain Detroit suburbs.

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

Toney v General Motors Corp – 7.13

Toney v General Motors Corp
Digest no. 7.13

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Toney v General Motors Corp, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued December 5, 1979 (No. B77 19640 60610).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Albert Toney
Employer: General Motors Corporation
Docket no.: B77 19640 60610
Date of decision: December 5, 1979

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: Where an individual’s principal occupation has been machine operator, and the claimant voluntarily retires and moves to an area in which such work is unavailable, the claimant is not available for work.

FACTS: “The claimant voluntarily retired from his employment as a machine operator with the involved employer on June 30, 1977.” He moved to Titusville, in Brevard County, Florida. “Claimant also testified that the area in Florida to which he relocated did not have any machine shops which offered the type of employment in which claimant had former work experience (T. of March 29, 1978 hearing p. 8).”

DECISION: The claimant does not meet the availability requirements of Section 28(1)(c) of the Act.

RATIONALE: “Claimant retired and moved to Florida. In doing so, he took himself out of a labor market which had substantial employment opportunities for persons in claimant’s job classification (machinist). He moved from an area of high job concentration in his employment classification to an area of low industrialization and few, if any, opportunities for a machinist. From the record, it is obvious that claimant was not genuinely attached to the labor market and not genuinely desirous of finding work which by previous experience he was qualified to perform.”

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