*1 BERGER, Claimant-Appellant, Susan L. SHERIFF,
NEZ PERCE
Employer-Respondent, Idaho, Department
State
Employment, Respondent.
No. 14447.
Supreme Court of Idaho. Aid Robinson, Legal W. Randall
Oct. Lewiston, Services, claimant-appellant. for Lewiston, Russell, Jr., for B. William ployer-respondent. Thomas, Jones, Atty. Gen.,
Jim Rebecca Gen., Boise, Atty. respondent. for Deputy HUNTLEY, Justice. appeals from an
Claimant application order denying The for benefits. voluntary resigna- whether presented are was for cause. facts undisputed. essentially Claimant, employed Berger, Susan Perce Office by the Nez Sheriff’s co-worker, to a engaged when she became months before Lyle Berger. About six marriage they their became aware nepotism interpreted county’s married of a prohibit employment be- days Five department. couple informed marriage fore Lyle either she marriage. after Both Susan since resigned, reasoning Lyle equally qualified both were well a a desire to make law enforcement shared career, would be for either it unfair They alone. the other expect await dis- resign rather elected to negative- a charge because affect future ly 18,1981, and Susan on March Lyle resigned then moved They resigned five later. area to seek Spokane to the employ- to find Failing law enforcement. *2 ment, they say returned to We cannot the Lewiston area herself and her husband. and holding in applied for insur- erred the Commission ance benefits. good cause. did not constitute such a reason The order of Claimant contends that voluntary her res affirmed. ignation was made necessary by her em ployer’s enforcement of anti-nepotism attorney No fees Respondents. Costs policy, that policy was wrongly enforced allowed. against as husband, claimant and her and therefore her resignation was for BAKES, J., DONALDSON, C.J., and con- “good cause.”1 cur. While this Court has established SHEPARD, Justice, dissenting. guidelines, law, as a matter of for determin agree I cannot with the ultimate conclu- ing whether a person’s for quitting reasons that claimant did not majority sion of or refusing employment constitute “good voluntarily have cause good statute,2 within the meaning of the the guidelines are and a necessarily general determination good particular cause in a be, suspect and I Although there depends case primarily on the facts of that there more to this case is contained case. Ellis v. Northwest Fruit & record, restricted to that in the we are (1982); Saulls Plain- provides only It these facts: record. Employment Security Agency, 85 employees were of the tiff and her fiance 212, 377 P.2d 789 This will Court job of Nez Perce and Sheriff therefore review the determi Commission’s was, indications, from all satis- performance nation on the question of cause and and factory every way; experience in
the legal
requi
standards
but with
applied,
were
job qualifications
positions
for their
site
findings
deference being paid to factual
when claimant and
approximately equal;
up
make
the basis for such determi
Sheriff,
marry,
her finance decided to
See,
nation.
Ellis v. Northwest Fruit &
wrongfully,
but
advised
probably sincerely,
Produce, supra.
pro-
county nepotism policy
them that
a husband and wife
hibited
In the present case the Commission
of them must therefore
team and that one
determined that claimant did not
and
claimant met with
resign;
cause to
because at the time of
method of
attempted to work out some
longer
resignation her husband was no
jobs, which included her offer
saving both
office,
working for the sheriff’s
part
another
of the sheriff’s
to transfer
as
requirements
anti-nepotism policy,
all
rejected
of-
department, but
sheriff, were
erroneously
interpreted by
necessity
resigna-
fers and reiterated the
nevertheless
with. Claimant’s de
complied
tion; and,
majority opinion,
in the
as noted
cision
that both she and her husband
both claimant and her fiance
prompted
any way by
was not
in
that,
out
ab-
majority correctly points
only
since he had advised that
sent
one or the other
resignation,
would have to
her husband
leave. After
discharged
have been
and a
had already resigned,
resignation
claimant’s
effect on his or
negative
would have had a
personal
for her
unnecessary, except
I note
her future
purpose
maintaining
fairness between
hired,
record,
ployees,
interpre-
related
unrelated when
become
1. As shown in the
the sheriffs
anti-nepotism policy
tation of
was incor-
thereafter.
rect. The
to favoritism
was directed
“appointment”
apply
hiring,
would not
72-1366(e).
§
I.C.
present
a situation such as here where
supersensitive.”
does
demonstrate
Ida-
the record
823,
“In order to constitute the decision compel
circumstances real, not
to leave must be trifling, and
imaginary, substantial not whimsical; there must be
reasonable compulsion produced by
some extraneous The stan-
and necessitous circumstances. cause is the
dard of what constitutes applied to of reasonableness as
standard woman, and not to man or average