*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 surance 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 relocate 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 October 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 needed 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 support 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 534 P.2d 464 agree. question of whether a claimant recognized § Laundry, In we that I.C. 72- statutory eligibility require has satisfied the “ 1366(f) ‘specific employ- requires a unemployment ments for prospective employ- ment to be tendered to a question Clay is a of fact. v. BMC West ee before it can be concluded that there has Plant, 90, Truss 127 Idaho 903 P.2d accept employee been a failure the to (1995); City Corp., Burnside v. Gate Steel ” Laundry, suitable work when offered.’ 339, 112 Idaho 739 P.2d (quoting Idaho at 869 P.2d at 1377 Tack- (1987). The claimant bears the burden of 465). ett, 96 Idaho at 534 P.2d at In showing eligibility requirements all of the Tackett, that, this Court concluded Burnside, have been satisfied. Idaho at upon the fact that the claimant had not re- 341; Newberg 739 P.2d at Owen v. employment, the claimant ceived an offer of Cedar, 77, 78-79, 101 Idaho 609 P.2d employ- offer of suitable had not refused an (1980) (holding 145-46 that claimant has bur eligible unemployment ment and was establishing employ den of that the offered Tackett, 96 at 635- surance benefits. work); ment was not suitable Howard v. 36, 534 P.2d at 465-66. Employment, 100 Idaho of (1979) (“It present In we hold that well settled the employment. proving establishing that the burden of did not receive an offer of Sec- grants statutory eligibility unemployment bene tion 33-513 of the Idaho Code the claimant.”). fits rests with a In Burnside board of trustees of each school district the power duty employ professional per- “[n]o Court noted that hard or fast rule Cline, proof proposed definitive of elements of of those re- sonnel. who of offered, Although work when the Commission did Commission noted that order suitable separately analyze to become insurance whether failed not benefits, must not be due to accept with cause. suitable failure, cause, claimant's without Czarlinsky, dis- 390 P.2d at counselor on behalf of the school tion. 87 Idaho school trict, authority to offer did not have undisputed that It is Czarlinsky Court appeal, affirmed Qualman accepted if the terms of the Board’s the Industrial Accident decision. proposed by still had board at 826. Qualman for approve that, despite held Court ap- Whether the school board would receive an fact that claimant did not proved Qualman never the claimant was entitled Qualmaris insistence decided based insurance benefits since made she was worth when Cline reasonable, to make a failed $25,110. Af- proposal faith effort to secure officials, discussing ter it with school district 70-72, Czarlinsky, 87 Idaho at 390 P.2d at informed again, Cline called 824-26. not offer the school district could testimony Czarlinsky claimant’s $25,110. Qualman contin- more than After garding her interview was follows: $30,00,

ued insist she was worth at least pursue he another Cline concluded Well, my application, 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 then 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 employer 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 Industrial 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, 87 Idaho at 390 P.2d at 826. The since he had to terminate their conversation Czarlinsky claim- Court held that since the position, did not applicants other for the two apply for suitable ant failed to discouraging an for constitute cause eligible unemployment insur- she was not present In the benefits. Id. The claimant’s desire not ance pro- Qualman informed once Cline nights did not constitute cause to work $25,- posed refusing to make a reasonable effort at least that she wanted employment. Czarlinsky, secure 87 Idaho responded that he would position. Cline P.2d at 824. get with school district officials check Czarlinsky rejected claim- Court Qualman. back to Cline later called applied ant’s contention that she for suitable school district man and informed her offered to work and was not her over her, making for benefits. Czar- Qualman continued to insist she tion. After linsky, 87 Idaho at 390 P.2d at 824. The $30,000, worth at least Cline stated actually Court stated that claimant had “[i]f plan in and the he had an alternate mind been offered the for which she was inter- conversation ended. viewing subsequently and had refused the $30,- Qualman’s request for hold that offer, ineligi- there would be no doubt of her faith and did not rise to the 000 was bility benefits. She held level where Court have refused an offer of suitable had failed to make a rea- that the claimant *6 ment.” 390 P.2d Qual- employment. effort to secure sonable pur- at 824. The Court held the good attempting man has evidenced faith pose Employment Security of Idaho’s Act counselor to cultivate the school was instructive: trying negotiate higher was to a however, remembered, It is to be salary experi- her education and Employment Security designed Act is to ence when Cline terminated the conversation. insecurity alleviate economic and to relieve conclude that there is no substantial hardships resulting involuntary from un- competent support the and evidence to Com- provide It was intended to mission’s that refused unemployed pre- benefits for those under Qualman is willing of suitable scribed conditions who are and able to work but unable to secure suitable em- insurance benefits. ployment on the labor market. It would legislative be a intent to Y. frustration a allow claimant who benefits fails CONCLUSION make a reasonable secure em- effort ployment. We have held a similar con- denying Qual- decision The Commission’s text that the element of faith is an man insurance benefits is re- ingredient It essential cause. versed and this case is remanded for action being that a claimant who is essential opinion. consistent with this Costs to the possible employment terviewed must appellant. attempting evidence to culti- faith job opportunity. vate the SILAK, JJ., concur. JOHNSON Czarlinsky, 87 Idaho at 390 P.2d at 824- TROUT, Justice, dissenting. added) omitted). (citations (emphasis asserts, ques- correctly holding Czarlinsky As the Court

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 selor 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 proffered 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, 127 Idaho at 903 P.2d tion of fact. Qualman made her record is that tion of the always defer to the should at 92. This Court ad- salary and when Cline demands known interpretations in its factual Commission not meet those the district could vised her competent evi there is substantial when demands, employment at she refused findings. Pomerinke support those dence salary. lower Trucking Transp., 124 Idaho v. Excel Report Claim the Idaho Continued (1993) (citing Idaho Qualman completed in she checked 72-732). 9; 5, § § Accord I.C. Const. art. stating that she had refused work. the box should affirm the Commis ingly, this Court refusal, Qualman gave, as her reason for finding Qualman sion’s order pay her at District would not that the School compensation benefits. testimony $30,000 year. In her be- least officer, Qualman made the hearing fore the J., SCHROEDER, joins in Justice following statement: TROUT’S dissent. So, Okay. hearing then Q. [by officer] 11th, when he on the October zero, salary twenty-five one one *7 [Qualman] Uh huh. A. ____did him that Q you tell 30,000? if it didn’t

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