10. Voluntary Leaving

Zausner v City of Kalamazoo – 10.09

Zausner v City of Kalamazoo
Digest no. 10.09

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: Zausner v City of Kalamazoo, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued June 26, 1984 (Docket No. B81 07242 78438).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Nancy Zausner
Employer: City of Kalamazoo
Docket no.: B81 07242 78438
Date of decision: June 26, 1984

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Reasonable efforts to comply with a city’s residency requirement are insufficient to avoid disqualification from unemployment benefits for voluntarily leaving work.

FACTS: When Plaintiff was hired by the employer, she acknowledged the city’s residency requirement. She did not, however, move into the city within six months, as required. At her request, defendant city granted an extension of an additional six months. When Claimant did not move into the city after the end of the extension, she was terminated.

DECISION: Claimant is disqualified for voluntary leaving.

RATIONALE: The burden of proof is on claimant where potential disqualification for benefits required inquiry into whether behavior causing termination of employment was voluntary, Cooper v University of Michigan, 100 Mich App 99, 103 (1980). In Echols v Employment Security Commission, 380 Mich 87 (1968), the Supreme Court held that a cab driver whose license was suspended for accumulating too many points, causing the loss of his job, was disqualified for voluntary leaving. “The within case is like Echols, in that there was a certainty that assumption of a known risk would result in the loss of her job, namely, failure to establish residency in the city within the specified time . . . Because of this certainty, it may fairly be said that she voluntarily left her job without good cause attributable to her employer.”

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