*1 QUALMAN, Carol M. Claimant-
Appellant,
v. Idaho, DEPARTMENT OF
STATE
EMPLOYMENT, Defendant-
Respondent.
No. 22226. Idaho,
Supreme Court of
Boise, March 1996 Term.
Aug. *2 $30,000 Qualman, pro Qualman receiving per Carol M. se. had been Maries, year previous position St. Lance, General; Attorney Evelyn Alan G. $30,000 per she would like earn at least Thomas, General, Boise, Deputy Attorney for year, and had she reminded Cline respondent. years completed six of work with the St. Maries School District as a school social McDEVITT, Chief Justice. worker, previously and had worked five involving This is a ease the denial of unem- years as a social worker for the Idaho De- benefits, ployment upon insurance partment of Health and Welfare. Cline (Commission) Industrial Commission’s find- 11, 1994, Qualman again called on October failed, ing that without Qualman and informed that he could not cause, an offer of suitable $25,110 Qualman more than ment. reverse the the Com- position. Qualman school counselor did not Qualman mission that received an offer of Qualman accept Cline’s offer. had been re- employment Qualman eligi- and hold that ceiving unemployment for unemployment ble for insurance benefits. fifteen weeks when she declined Cline’s em- ployment offer. I. Report, On her Idaho Continued Claim for AND
FACTS PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 8, 1994, ending the first week October appellant, Qualman (Qual ending Carol M. the second week October man), Canyon County Qualman Department moved to the area informed the Idaho after her Employment with the on St. Maries refused work Octo- 10,1994, Joint Qualman’s School District ended on expla- June ber handwritten due to the position refusing elimination of her a nation work stated: Qualman school social worker.1 had been 11,1994, Ferry October Glenns School Dis- employed by the St. Maries Joint School $25,000. trict I offered me for about District as a school social worker from Au $30,- had worked before and earned about 10,1994. gust Qualman 1988 to June moved year. 000 and would have earned more Canyon County area to increase her my paid asked to be education and employment opportunities in social work or experience but the District refused to system. related fields in the school me at I least which am Qualman applied for a with the receiving my worth work abilities and (school district) Glenns School District years experience. of work September on September 1994. On 19, 1994, Qualman completed On October 1994, Qualman by was interviewed a school interview, insurance ex- principal, district Mr. for an elementa- plaining Qualman’s the circumstances of ry position. During school counselor in- jection of Cline’s offer of terview, Qualman Cline informed upon man stated that based her education school counselor lot would involve a years experience, her services were Qualman of classroom time. informed Cline $30,000. Qualman worth at least also noted setting that she had not been in a classroom that the school counselor would have spent much counseling and had most of her required relocate out of the area she family groups. with individual and currently living in. 10,1994, Qualman On October Cline called Qualman 26,1994, a school counselor On October was deemed year. tion at ineligible the rate of Cline insurance bene- fits, 2,1994. needed to be filled effective October or the school district determined funding would not Department receive for the school surancе benefits based position. Qualman Employment’s finding informed Cline of gust Qualman's contract ended in Au- failed, cause, affirming appeals examiner’s De accept avail- without Order able, decision, January suitable work. On November cember adopted Erratum. The Commission Protest, My Expressing Qualman’s “Notice: findings of fact4 and de appeals examiner’s (Notice), requesting the Negative Assent” had been offered termined *3 re determine Department of accept employment failed to and suitable of insurance bene- its denial conclud such The Commission 26, Qualman’s challenge to the October fits. that, ed determination, upon the 1994 was based by [although salary the offered Cline offered, salary requirement of the amount might have made the offer unsuitable at time, period in of that she relоcate a short unemployment, inception the of Claimant’s qualifi- job offer her and that the was outside unem- that after weeks of we find fifteen cations. temper the con- ployment, Claimant must hearing appeals imposed A before an examiner on she has ditions limitations 14, During the salary December 1994. held on find restric- herself. We the hearing Qualman that she refused by stated imposed was not reason- tion Claimant position upon the sal counselor unemploy- school length in of the of her able view $5,000 being she would ary less than what the time offered her ment at the Cline job making previous St. have been Therefore, that the work position. we find Qualman period and the short of time Thus, Maries we Claimant was suitable. offered the have had relocate to Glenns an offer of that Claimant refused conclude job.2 Ferry area and start her ineligible for employment, and is suitable unemployment insurance benefits. determi appeals examiner issued her The 30, 1994, finding Qual nation on December Although the claimant contended accept failed to an offer of suitable man had position the school counselor because refused af appeals examiner notice, moving, type the the short of of cost Employment’s Oc firmed the of work, temporary na- salary, the low determination, 26, except she de 1994 tober position, found of the the Commission ture 1994, 9, of October nied benefits effective as objection Qualman’s “principle to the 2,1994 than on October rather salary.” re- was the The Commission prior Qualman fact “knew lied the appealed examiner’s appeals the date, 25, the start May applying position to the decision Commission. 1995, Nampa, from and the work Decision and the distance the Commission issued a position applied 2. The claimant would not known whether 2. through approved School District got board Glens until dinring position, with Mr. The claimant interviewed [sic]. Cline, her for the school counselor 29, September evening principal of Octоber Since the a school on by elementaiy October counselor offered had filled for an school she was to be argued insufficient position. there was an job. a new of time to relocate and start Cline called the amount 3. On October Mr. claimant that she mistak- stated her Notice the rate of counselor at school ending enly the week October checked per year option that with Continuing Report, when she on her Idaho Claim the end position could be renewable reported her refusal of the school the school term. appeals this error examiner corrected tion. The Cline that she claimant informed Mr. 4. The in the Erratum. receiving in her had been position. previous told the Mr. Cline following appeals find- 4. The examiner made position neеded be claimant ings of fact: district would or the filled funding Canyon County for that not receive their claimant 1.The moved Maries, Idaho, the offer of because of did area from St. salary opportunities. because the decrease better be that would employed by and the short notice the St. claimant had been the Glenns quired social to relocate School as a school Maries District Feny area. worker from 1988 to June or quirements eligibility ‘should be encompassed.” The Commission benefit reasonable, depend, at Qual perhaps adopted; could it must found that it was view of be particular facts and length unemployment, part, upon man’s to find least in salary developed for the school counselor in each case.’” circumstances Qualman, Burnside, suitable for and thus conclud P.2d at 341 Co., Mining an offer of (quoting ed “refused Hudson v. Hecla (1963)). [was] suitable Qual insurance benefits.”5 III. appealed man the Commission’s decision to this Court. QUALMAN DID NOT RECEIVE AN OFFER OF SUITABLE
II.
EMPLOYMENT
*4
STANDARD OF REVIEW
§
forth the
Idaho Code
72-1366 sets
eligibility
personal
conditions of
benefit
reviewing a decision of the
When
that her
claimant. The claimant must show
Commission, this
will not disturb the
Court
failure
“unemployment
[her]
is not due to
findings
they
supported by
factual
if
are
apply
without
cause to
for available
competent
substantial and
Laun
evidence.
accept
suitable work or to
suitable work
Ctr.,
dry v. Franciscan Health Care
125 Ida
72-1366(f).
§
to
I.C.
[her].”
when offered
279,
(1994).
281,
1374, 1376
ho
869 P.2d
Sub
competent
Qualman argues
specifi-
stantial and
evidence consists of
that she was not
might
cally
relevant evidence a reasonable mind
the school
accept
adequate
suрport
as
to
a conclusion.
and thus she could not have refused suitable
holding
Id. This
employment, pursuant
Court exercises free review over
Id.;
V,
questions
College Beauty,
of law.
Idaho Const. art
Tackett v. Continental
96
of
634,
(1975),
§
Laundry.
Idaho
ued
insist she was worth at least
pursue
he
another
Cline concluded
Well,
my apрlication,
making
out
he
option and the conversation was concluded.
asked,
course,
my
experi-
sales
about
never
an offer
appli-
on the
and all which was shown
ence
*5
ment.
me,
And
cation.
then he told
course
it
what the work consisted of—that was
IV.
And then
department.
the cosmetic
he
hours
went on to relate that the
would be
QUALMAN EXERCISED
FAITH
GOOD
week;
nine till six one
twelve
nine the
ATTEMPTING
IN
TO CULTIVATE
I
following week. And thеn
told him that
A JOB OPPORTUNITY
working nights.
not
preferred
I
And he
to dis
appear
While Tackett would
why
I told him
asked the reason
it was
pose
present
of the
ease in favor of
dog
I had a
I had a
that
because
home and
qualifying for
insurance bene
it,
care
I didn’t
had to have
for
care
fits,
analysis
pur
the Court’s
must continue
hours,
I
night
after
that
hadn’t
be out
Czarlinsky v.
holding
Court’s
suant
this
night
preferred
I
not
worked
hours and
Agency,
Sec.
nights
possibly
working
if I could
find
(1964).
P.2d 822
to.
something
I didn’t have
that —that
Czarlinsky,
In
considered
Court
ever,
any
Q
you
course in the
But did
at
eligible
for unem-
whether a claimant
interview,
you
not
say that
would
work
ployment
claim-
given
nights?
ant
offer of
never
A No.
Czarlinsky
The
Court considered whether
you preferred
Q
did
You
not. You said
eligible
for
claimant was
working nights?
not
prospec-
“gave
surance benefits after she
her
impression
she would
emplоyer
tive
that
right.
A That’s
joba
if it had been
accepted
even
have
Q And what
made this
occurred
Czarlinsky,
87 Idaho at
offered.”
statement?
P.2d at 824.
A
he said that that would close our
Well
Czarlinsky
Accident
the Industrial
In
conversation;
had to
that he
claimant,
“initiated
Board found
nights.
that
work
someone
would
job
Indus-
in the
breakdown
interview.”
Czarlinsky,
P.2d at
87 Idaho at
Board
that
trial Accident
concluded
for the
testified
the em-
responsible
be held
The claimant further
claimant would
two
for
informed
that he had
other
ployer
her further
employer’s failure
consider
position.
fill the
applicants
if the claim-
who could
Czar-
job,
in the same manner as
at
posi-
linsky, apply
ant
refiised to
for the
interviewing stage, Qualman
during the
Czarlinsky
concluded the evi-
er
Court
attempting
Accident
to cultivate
supported
dence
the Industriаl
acted in
faith
initiated
job oppor-
Board’s
school counselor
the Glenns
application
the breakdown of her
for work
that a
tunity.
In
the Court held
deemed to
such that the
would be
“preferred not
claimant’s statement
apply
for
Czar-
have refused
employer’s response
working nights” and the
linsky,
Applying the
to the
really
here is not
whether Cline
facts of this
we must determine wheth-
tion
type
some
of offer was
Qualman the school
tent evidence
authority to offer
refused;
and there
rather whether
made which
position but
counselor
point
purpose
served at
good faith effort
be no
demonstrated a
Likewise,
approval.
job opportunity.
seeking
school board
a suitable
cultivate
salary
finding that “the
that the school coun-
concluded
the Commission’s
Commission
claimant,
by [Qualman] was not
imposed
suitable for the
sеlor
restriction
salary
than her
substantial
though
supported
was lower
is also
even
reasonable”
to take
Contrary
that her refusal
expectations,
competent
evidence.
ineligible
conclusion,
for ben-
rendered her
was ad-
once
Court’s
however,
holds,
salary requirements
The Court
efits.
vised that
salary
higher
a
was a
“request”
met,
man’s
consid-
to thenceforth be
be
her refusal
prоffered
to cultivate the
faith effort
does
for the school
ered
merely trying she was
position and that
good faith.
not evidence
negotiate
when he terminated
with Cline
notes, determining
whether
As the Court
This is
the Court’s
conversation.
eligibility require
claimant has satisfied
On the
interpretation of the record.
own
ques
is a
unemployment benefits
ments for
interpreta-
equally
contrary, an
reasonable
Clay,
take it 30,000 ... at least I told him I needed NEWMAN, duly A. elected B. Gara prosecutor of Minidoka see, pre- under the facts I therefore fail to Petitioner, County, sented, Qualman’s can be dis- how situation meaningful sense from tinguished any v. anything, Czarlinsky. If of the claimant Attorney LANCE, General Hon. Alan G. ambiguous than Qualman’s actions were less Idaho, Respondent. for the State only who those of the claimant not work- employer “preferred” No. 23100. appli- in the ing nights when the breakdown of Idaho. Supreme Court Qualman specifical- process cation occurred. for less than ly refused to work Aug. she was entitled. she felt to which Qualman refused an actual Thus whether rejected employment or overtures, compe- there is substantial
Cline’s