Mullins v. Golden Home Health Care Agency – 10.108

Mullins v. Golden Home Health Care Agency
Digest No. 10.108

Section 421.29(1)(a)

Cite as: Mullins v Golden Home Health Care Agency, unpublished opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, issued May 27, 2005 (Docket No. 05-503476-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Shirley Mullins
Employer: Golden Home Health Care Agency
Date of decision: May 27, 2005

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: A claimant who was employed in two part-time jobs concurrently and subsequently quit one in order to accept a full-time job with the other employer is not disqualified from receiving benefits if she subsequently loses her job with the other employer for a non-disqualifying reason.   

FACTS: Claimant was working two different jobs with Golden Home Health and Walmart, concurrently. Golden Home Health told her she would be given additional clients which would require her to take on additional travel without reimbursement. Additionally, Claimant learned of a full time opportunity with Walmart that would entail higher pay, benefits, and no travel. Claimant decided to leave her employment with Golden Home Health to pursue the full time opportunity with Walmart. After leaving this position, Claimant lost her full time job with Walmart and sought to collect unemployment benefits. Claimant was denied.

The ALJ found Claimant was not disqualified for benefits. The MCAC reversed and found Claimant disqualified for benefits.

DECISION: The Circuit Court reversed the decision of the MCAC. Claimant is not disqualified for benefits.

RATIONALE: Per Dickerson v Norrell Health Care, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Kent County Circuit Court, issued September 21, 1995 (Docket No. 95-1806-AE), a claimant who had simultaneous full-time and part-time employment, who left the part-time job for disqualifying reasons and later unexpectedly lost the full-time job for non-disqualifying reasons is not disqualified from receiving benefits under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act.

Since, when Claimant quit her job with Golden Home Healthcare, it only resulted in one less job, and not total unemployment, Claimant’s decision to quit her job with Golden Home Health was not disqualifying under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act.

Digest author: Cydney Warburton, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest updated: 10/31/2017

Hilton v. Meijer Stores Limited – 10.93

Hilton v. Meijer Stores Limited
Digest no. 10.93

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Hilton v Meijer Stores Limited, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued August 31, 2004 (Docket No. B2003-09139).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Akira Hilton
Employer: Meijer Stores Limited
Docket no.: B2003-09139-170939
Date of decision: August 31, 2004

View/download the full decision

BOARD HOLDING: A claimant who has simultaneous employment with a part-time employer and a full-time employer, who leaves her part-time job because it conflicts with the full-time job, is disqualified under Section 29(1)(a) because her leaving was not attributable to the part-time employer.

FACTS: Claimant worked for Meijer on a part-time basis, and simultaneously worked full-time for Wallside Windows. Claimant voluntarily left her employment with Meijer because it conflicted with her full-time employment. Ten days later, Wallside Windows discharged the claimant for non-disqualifying reasons.

DECISION: The claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits under Section 29(1)(a).

RATIONALE: In Dickerson v Norrell Health Care, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Kent Circuit Court, issued September 21, 1995, (Docket No. 95-1806-AE)(Digest 10.81), the circuit court addressed what presents itself as a gross inequity: that although Claimant had been laid off from a full-time job for non-disqualifying circumstances, Claimant was nevertheless ineligible for benefits solely because Claimant had just voluntarily left an unrelated part-time job. The court’s conclusion that a claimant could not be found to have “left employment” unless her leaving resulted in total unemployment is at odds with the plain and unambiguous language of the statute. The court also ignores that the employer the claimant quit faces charges to its account and tax rate increases even though it in no way contributed to the job separation. Additionally, if such a claimant quit only one of her jobs, she could receive unemployment benefits provided she still worked at least part-time and thus was not totally unemployed. Then the former full-time employer’s account would be charged for the benefits paid, and the current part-time employer would also be charged for a portion of the benefits, even though neither employer in any way contributed to the claimant’s job separation. The Board notes that circuit court decisions are not binding precedent. Due to the potential unintended consequences of Dickerson, if a change in the statutory language is necessary, it should come from the legislature.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
11/04

Mitchell v Wal-Mart Associates – 10.92

Mitchell v Wal-Mart Associates
Digest no. 10.92

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Mitchell v Wal-Mart Assoc, unpublished opinion of the Allegan Circuit Court, issued November 22, 2002 (Docket No. 02-31816-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Denise M. Mitchell
Employer: Wal-Mart
Docket no.: B2001-15958-RO1-162871W
Date of decision: November 22, 2002

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: A claimant who voluntarily leaves part-time employment to save her full-time employment is not disqualified under Section 29(1)(a) if she is subsequently laid-off by the full-time employer.

FACTS: The claimant worked part-time for Wal-Mart, and simultaneously worked for a full-time employer. She was working more than 65 hours/week total. Claimant left her part-time employment due to conflicts with her work schedule with her full-time employer. The full-time employer unexpectedly laid her off the following day.

DECISION: The claimant is not disqualified pursuant to Section 29(1)(a).

RATIONALE: “Given the conflict in work schedules between the two jobs…,Wal-Mart’s actions of staffing and continuing operations at times threatening to the claimant’s full-time job would cause a reasonable and average person to choose between the two.” Claimant reasonably chose her full-time job. The court found non-binding support from another circuit and two other states in Dickerson v Norrell Health Care, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Kent Circuit Court, issued September 21, 1995 (Docket No. 95-1806-AE); Merkel v HIP of New Jersey, 573 A2d 517 (1990); and, Gilbert v Hanlon 335 NW2d 548 (1983). In those cases, “the courts found that technical interpretations of “work” worked an injustice to the purpose and intentions of each state’s respective law by equating one’s reasonable decision to leave a part-time job with the unreasonable quest to leave employment altogether.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated:
11/04

Skalecki v Anslow, MD, PC – 10.45

Skalecki v Anslow, MD, PC
Digest no. 10.45

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Skalecki v Anslow, MD, PC, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued September 26, 1985 (Docket No. 85-546 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Jo Ann L. Skalecki
Employer: Richard Anslow, M.D., P.C.
Docket no.: B83 21682 96585W
Date of decision: September 26, 1985

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: “Claimant cannot be charged with voluntarily terminating her employment without good cause attributable to the employer where she is required to accept new full-time employment for which she is not trained or experienced.”

FACTS: Claimant worked for Dr. Anslow on a part-time basis as a medical assistant. Employees performing the functions of transcriber and billing officer left the employment of Dr. Anslow. The claimant was offered the opportunity of working full time as the transcription and insurance processing person. Claimant was unable to type. The employer, at its expense, offered to send claimant to school for stenographic-transcription typing skills. Claimant indicated she was not interested in the training for full-time work.

DECISION: Claimant is not disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: Inasmuch as claimant is not trained or experienced, claimant did not have to accept this position even if free training was offered.

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

Wasolaskus v Tom’s Grandville Station – 10.21

Wasolaskus v Tom’s Grandville Station
Digest no. 10.21

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Wasolaskus v Tom’s Grandville Station, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued August 21, 1978 (Docket No. FSB76 13211 55248).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Dennis Wasolaskus
Employer: Tom’s Grandville Station
Docket no.: FSB76 13211 55248
Date of decision: August 21, 1978

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: A seventeen (17) percent reduction in wages is good cause for voluntarily leaving part-time work.

FACTS: The claimant was a part-time attendant at a filling station. He worked 20 hours per week at $2.50 per hour. The claimant’s pay was subsequently reduced about $40.00 per month by his removal from the Saturday work schedule. The claimant resigned as a result.

DECISION: The claimant is not disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE:Jack Desser, d/b/a/ Jack Desser Biscuit Company v Appeal Board, Wayne County Circuit Court, No. 324-748 (July 5, 1962), held that a ‘substantial reduction’ in wages can constitute ‘good cause’ for quitting one’s employment. The ‘substantial reduction’ in Desser consisted of a 20 percent reduction in claimant’s gross commissions. The curtailment of hours imposed by employer upon claimant in this case would have reduced his income by approximately 17 percent if he had continued his employment. The reduction in wages was ‘substantial.’

“The part-time nature of claimant’s employment does not, per se alter the substantiality of the reduction in claimant’s wages.”

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