Burross v Croswell Lexington Schools
Digest no. 10.73
Cite as: Burross v Croswell Lexington Schools, issued by the Macomb Circuit Court, issued April 11, 1995 (Docket No. 94-2995-AE).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Mary M. Burross
Employer: Croswell Lexington Schools
Docket no.: B92-30364-124904
Date of decision: April 11, 1995
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: When the claimant, a teacher, tenders a resignation on the advice of the school’s principal, the leaving is not considered disqualifying since the claimant did not initiate the separation.
FACTS: The claimant worked as a high school special education teacher, having previously worked in an elementary school. She was under a one-year written contract as a probationary employee. The claimant received a negative evaluation. The school’s principal informed her that he would recommend the claimant not be offered another contract. The claimant met with the principal and two union officials. The principal told the claimant if she submitted a resignation she could have the evaluation stricken from her record which would increase her chances of finding employment. Claimant understood the principal did not have the final say as to whether she would be offered a new contract. Nevertheless, the claimant took this advice and submitted a resignation.
DECISION: The claimant is not disqualified for benefits.
RATIONALE: The court distinguished the present matter from Imlay City Community Schools v Merillat, unpublished opinion Ingham County Circuit Court, August 27, 1988 (Docket No. 86-011243-AE). In Merillat the claimant initiated the resignation idea, and decided to tender his resignation after reflecting on the advantages and disadvantages. In the present matter, “there was unrefuted evidence that claimant was told she should resign to preserve her employment record.” The claimant did not “initiate the discussion regarding her resignation.”
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 7/99