Categories
10. Voluntary Leaving

City of Saginaw v Lindquist – 10.04

City of Saginaw v Lindquist
Digest no. 10.04

Section 29(1)(a)

Cite as: City of Saginaw v Lindquist, sub nom Parks v ESC, 427 Mich 224 (1986).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Nancy A. Lindquist
Employer: City of Saginaw
Docket no.: B81 06822 RO1 78455
Date of decision: December 26, 1986

View/download the full decision

SUPREME COURT HOLDING: Failure to sufficiently comply with a condition of employment constitutes a voluntary leaving without good cause attributable to the employer.

FACTS: The claimant was working for the involved employer when she moved from Saginaw to Lupton with her husband and children. She lived in Saginaw a few days a week to be close to work but never intended the Saginaw address to be her permanent address. The claimant was terminated for failing to maintain a bona fide residence in the City of Saginaw as required by its Administrative Code.

DECISION: The claimant is disqualified pursuant to Section 29(1)(a) of the MES Act.

RATIONALE: Although the claimant did not resign because of the change in the location of her residence, her failure to sufficiently comply with the residency requirement, a condition of her employment, constituted a voluntary leaving without good cause attributable to the employer. The court was not persuaded that claimant’s attempts to comply with the requirement constituted wilful “misconduct connected with work.” The claimant is treated “as if she had done that which was presumably required under the circumstances — resigned because of the relocation of her permanent residence.”

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

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Cite as: Zausner v City of Kalamazoo, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued June 26, 1984 (Docket No. B81 07242 78438).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