Parker v. TNT Logistics North America, Inc. – 7.36

Parker v. TNT Logistics North America, Inc.
Digest No. 7.36

Section 421.28(1)(c)

Cite as: Parker v TNT Logistics North America, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, issued December 27, 2007 (Docket No. 07-717651-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Karen F. Parker
Employer: TNT Logistics North America, Inc.
Date of decision: December 27, 2007

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: A claimant is not ineligible for benefits under Section 421.28(1)(c) if she leaves her job due to physical impairment if she seeks job placement help to return to the work force.

FACTS: Claimant left her factory job due to arthritis and other physical impairment. The UIA deemed her ineligible for benefits under Section 421.28(1)(c), finding her unable to perform suitable full-time work. At an ALJ hearing, Claimant admitted her condition likely precluded her from returning to her previous kinds of employment. But, she testified she had sought job placement help with the Michigan Rehabilitative Services to return to the work force.

The ALJ and Board of Review both affirmed the UIA’s determination of ineligibility.

DECISION: The Circuit Court reversed Board of Review. Claimant is not ineligible for benefits.

RATIONALE: Following McKentry v MESC, 99 Mich App 277 (1980), the court noted that a “claimant is not ineligible for benefits under the ability provision when seeking a different type of employment than his or her last job.” And, under Bolles v MESC, 361 Mich 378 (1960), “registering for and seeking work were indicia that a claimant was able and available for work, and therefore remained attached to the labor market.”

Here, Claimant had previously performed clerical work and was seeking further job training to potentially return to such employment. Therefore, Claimant maintained a sufficient connection to the workforce to preserve benefits eligibility.

Digest author: Austin L. Webbert, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest updated: 10/31/2017

Walls v Career Consultants – 7.09

Walls v Career Consultants
Digest no. 7.09

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Walls v Career Consultants, unpublished opinion of the Kalamazoo Circuit Court, issued April 6, 1978 (Docket No. D 774 00 476 AV).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Sharon Walls
Employer: Career Consultants
Docket no.: B76 613 RO 53037
Date of decision: April 6, 1978

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: A seeking work waiver does not excuse a claimant from being available under Section 28(1)(c).

FACTS: Claimant worked for the employer on commission as a placement counselor, finding work for others. After she became pregnant, she started missing work. She quit her employment although she was still physically able to work. Claimant took several Civil Service exams and had registered at a number of places — among them, some temporary agencies like Manpower, and at least one placement agency.

DECISION: Claimant is ineligible for benefits.

RATIONALE: “This Court is unable to see the distinction appellant claims between (a) seeking work and (c) available for work. Certainly they are two separate requirements under the statute and if there was a waiver in effect, as the appellant claims, she probably did not have to seek work under Section 28(1)(c) but the waiver would not excuse her being available under Section 28(1)(c). Since her mental attitude was in issue, this court feels the referee properly considered her seeking work to determine her credibility in saying she was available for work. We cannot look into her mind to see her mental attitude, but her conduct throws some light on her mental attitude.”

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