Blue v. Department of Labor, 27 A.3d 1096

Blue left Hickok & Boardman Realty in summer 2010 to undertake a three‑month cross‑country bicycle ride for MS in honor of her father.
Blue asked for an unpaid personal leave; supervisor allegedly granted it and promised reinstatement on September 1, 2010; she left belongings in her office and took vacation payout but did not submit a written leave request.
Supervisor recalled the request as made well in advance with no guarantee of reinstatement; the employer did not keep a formal written leave policy for such leaves.
Upon Blue’s return in late August 2010, she was informed a part‑time employee had been hired full‑time to replace her; other staff had performed her duties during her absence.
ALJ found Blue initiated the separation by requesting the leave, concluding it was voluntary; the Board upheld this, with one member dissenting in favor of a leave of absence theory.
The court emphasizes liberal construction of unemployment statute and shifts burden: employer must show voluntary departure; if not, claimant may be eligible for benefits; remand for further factual development on the status of the leave.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Blue's departure voluntary under 21 V.S.A. §1344(a)(2)(A)?	Blue contends the ride was a temporary leave of absence, not a complete severance.	Hickok argues Blue initiated voluntary separation by requesting leave without guaranteed return.	Remanded for factual development; no final holding on voluntariness.
Did the employer bear the initial burden to prove voluntary departure, shifting then to Blue to show good cause attributable to the employer?	Burden should shift to employer to prove voluntary quit; if not, benefits should be awarded.	Burden lies with employer to prove the employee left voluntarily.	Remanded for determination consistent with the statutory burden framework.

Trapeni v. Dep't of Emp't Sec., 142 Vt. 317, 455 A.2d 329 (1982) (left on leave may not constitute voluntary quitting if leave preserves employment relation)
Chenault v. Otis Engineering Corp., 423 S.W.2d 377 (Tex.Civ.App.1967) (leave of absence connotes continuity of employment)
Neilsen v. Department of Employment Security, 113 N.H. 642, 312 A.2d 708 (1973) (leave of absence preserves employment; no voluntary quitting if return possible)
South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Administrator, Division of Employment Security, 247 So.2d 615, 617 (La.Ct.App.1971) (leave of absence generally not a voluntary quit where return possible)
Lewis v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 56 Cal.App.3d 729, 128 Cal.Rptr. 795 (Cal.App.1976) (leave of absence not guaranteed but preserves employment in ordinary cases)
Isabelle v. Dep't of Emp't & Training, 150 Vt. 458, 554 A.2d 660 (1988) (liberal construction; burden on employee to prove good cause for leaving)
In re Therrien, 132 Vt. 535, 325 A.2d 357 (1974) (claimant bears initial burden to prove eligibility; basic elements established)
Fleece on Earth v. Dep't of Emp't & Training, 181 Vt. 458, 923 A.2d 594 (2007 VT 29) (unemployment act is remedial and liberally construed)