11. Leaving to Accept

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Cite as: Mullins v Golden Home Health Care Agency, unpublished opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, issued May 27, 2005 (Docket No. 05-503476-AE).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RATIONALE: Per Dickerson v Norrell Health Care, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Kent County Circuit Court, issued September 21, 1995 (Docket No. 95-1806-AE), a claimant who had simultaneous full-time and part-time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

10. Voluntary Leaving

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