Categories
07. Eligibility - Able & Available

Ditmore v Terry’s Lounge – 7.18

Ditmore v Terry’s Lounge
Digest no. 7.18

Section 28(1)(c)

Cite as: Ditmore v Terry’s Lounge, unpublished opinion of the Wayne Circuit Court, issued April 20, 1979 (No. 78-838-555-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Grace Ditmore
Employer: Terry’s Lounge
Docket no.: B77 6663 55827
Date of decision: April 20, 1979

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where a claimant with limited work experience last worked five miles from home, but limits his or her availability to jobs within walking distance, even after 18 consecutive weeks of unemployment, the claimant is not available for work.

FACTS: Claimant was laid off from a job as a pizza cook five miles from her home. Her eligibility was questioned when 18 weeks later, she was referred to but declined a cook’s position located seven or eight miles from home. Allegedly because of transportation uncertainties claimant restricted her availability to restaurants within walking distance.

DECISION: The claimant does not meet the availability requirements of Section 28(1)(c) of the Act.

RATIONALE: Transportation is the responsibility of the claimant. “[C]ases cited by the appellee support the position of this Court, namely, In Re Barcomb, 315 A2d 476 (1974), and the conclusions of these jurisdictions appear clear that availability’ and hence the applicable ‘labor market’ in which an applicant must be ‘available’ is a function of the individual applicant. An individual must offer his services in a market, and that market must be a sufficient geographical area to provide or encompass employers who use the type of services offered by this applicant.”

“In brief, for the claimant to restrict her availability for work as a pizza cook to a walking distance from her home was certainly unreasonable. By this restriction, she did not genuinely expose herself to jobs in her labor market. It must be emphasized that the record made before Referee Berk would indicate that the claimant did have transportation, that is the same transportation she possessed when she worked at Terry’s.”

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

Categories
07. Eligibility - Able & Available

Woodall Industries Inc. v. Tracy – 7.38

Woodall Industries Inc. v. Tracy
Digest No. 7.38

Section 421.28

Cite as: Woodall Industries Inc. v. Tracy, unpublished opinion of the Oakland County Circuit Court, issued Sept. 17, 1941 (Docket No. 26150).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Marie Tracy
Employer: Woodall Industries, Inc.
Date of decision: September 17, 1941

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: The requirement that a claimant be “able to work and available for work” includes the ability to procure transportation to the workplace.

FACTS: Claimant lived twenty-two miles from her place of employment.  Claimant quit voluntarily because she lost access to transportation to the place of employment.  The Claimant re-acquired transportation approximately four months later.  Claimant was denied benefits for the period of time when she was without transportation.

DECISION: As a matter of fact and law, claimant was not “able to work and available to work” during the period when she had no means of transportation.  Claimant was eligible for benefits from the time when she re-acquired transportation that allowed her to travel to her place of employment.

RATIONALE: Eligibility for benefits depends on the ability to travel to the place of employment.*

Digest Author: James Mestichelli, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest Updated: 3/27/2016

*The court used 421.28(c), but that language seems to have been amended. That is why the statutory section cited above is just 421.28.