Schafer v. Ada County Assessor
728 P.2d 394
Idaho
1986
Check Treatment

*1 whо has voluntarily, be- lieving SCHAFER, he has a firm Lewis P. offer from SSA 518 36 anoth- er employer, Claimant-Respondent, left his employment has vol- untarily cause,” required as is under eligibility conditions ASSESSOR, ADA COUNTY Employment Security Act. Appellant, Employer, Act, Under Idaho’s eligible a benefit claimant is for unemploy- compеnsation provided “his unem- Idaho, Department State of ployment is not due fact that left he Employment, Respondent. without No. 16135. cause, or discharged that he was for mis- conduct in connection with his employ- Supreme Idaho. 72-1366(f). ment.” I.C. Sept. 1986. (Claimant) Lewis employed Schafer Rehearing Denied Oct. 1986. (Ada County County) Assessor

from 1968 until October 1984. In Schafer, employed County, while with Ada George met with Britton of Spokane (Spokane County) office Assessor’s person, telephone several con- attempt versations with him an per- Spokane County adopt compu- suadе appraisal terized system po- and to discuss Spokane County. tential Schafer, Britton later informed a letter 22, 1984, August position dated ap- Schafer was interested had been proved, competition there position, it would be filled (The filling October 1984. date for 1st.) position was moved to later November telephone Schafer had several conversa- receiving tions with Britton after the letter which led him to that the believe advertise- formality, ment would mere Brit- be a hiring ton ultimate would make the deci- sion, virtually as- and that Schafer position. sured of the Schafer, belief, acting under employees and other formed the Assessor Greg Bower, Boise, H. and Theodore E. leaving in the he would be office that Boise, Argyle (argued), appellant. Spokane County. accept position Jones, Evelyn Atty. Jim Thom- Gen. Schafer then his home with a real listed as, Deputy (D.O.E.), Atty. Gen. State of October 1st agency. estate On Schafer Idaho, Boise, respondent. resignation, submitted letter of a written

effective 29th. October HUNTLEY, Justice. Schafer, call when he did not receive a confirming issue before this court is whether October, concluding County during the Commission the last week of erred in that an

871 resigned he that Schafer was Schafer because believed attempted to contact Britton. by Spokane County; to contact Britton until November he had been hired and unable 1st, 4) evidence, he some although conflicting which time learned that at there was establishing po- in delays occurred had who Schafer was a credible witness had this was to At time Schafer asked good sition. reasonably faith in termi- acted and application updat- and an submit an official nating County. with Ada ed resume. is evidence Since there substantiаl ‍‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‍November, asked Later in Britton Schaf- record which indicates that Schafer reason- Spokane to for an interview. er travel ably that he had secured believed interview, told he Schafer was that At the Spokane County that he ment with and hired. would not be belief, this this in reliance on 1985, court, January filed claim the find- appeal, Schafer a on will not disturb The insurance benefits. ings for of the Commission. Employment of issued a deter- Department determining “good guidelines The for 6th, February concluding dated

mination necessarily general a deter cause” are and failed establish had Schafer depends “good primari mination of cause” voluntarily leaving employment cause for a case. Ber of ly upon particular facts was, therefore, ineligible he and that 555, Sheriff, Perce ger v. Nez Idaho 105 appealed, unemployment benefits. Schafer Employ (1983); Saulls v. Appeals resulting in the Examiner of 212, Agency, 85 377 Idaho finding Idaho of (1963). P.2d 789 Whether cause” the reasons advanced Schafer upon present depends whether a reason abandoning employment justified a de- person able would consider the circum voluntarily quit that he with termination resulting in the claimant’s unem stances was, therefore, cause, he substantial, real, and com ployment to entitled to benefits. Homes, pelling. Meyer Skyline v. Mobile County appealed the determination Ada (1979); Fong 754, 89 99 Idaho 589 P.2d Appeals Examiner the Industrial # 261, 101 Idaho School District Jerome Commission, assigned which the case to (1979). 219, 611 P.2d 1004 "... [T]he Youngstrom hearing. referee Robert C. compel which the decision to circumstances real, imagi- adopted must be not The Industrial Commission leave substantial, Law, Fact, trifling, Findings nary, Conclusions of not and reason- Referee, there must be some uрheld able, whimsical; Order of the which not Examiner, produced by compulsion extraneous and Appeals decision of circumstances. appeal followed. The necessitous standard good cause is the stan- what constitutes Findings supported by of fact substantial appliеd of reasonableness dard competent, though conflicting, evi Burroughs average or man woman.” appeal. will not be disturbed on dence Employment Security Agency, 9; City Roll v. V, C art. sec. onst. (1963) (quoting Middleton, 665 P.2d Security and Public Wel- C.J.S. Social Pro Ellis v. Northwest Fruit & (1983); 253, 254.) (emphasis add- pp. fare § duce, (1982); ed). House, 746, 588 Rogers v. Trim P.2d 945 alia, found, inter The Commission a bonafide and reasonable be- 1) Schafer had found that: Schafer position had a lief that he secured would given to understand that there that Schafer a Spokane obtaining employment problem be no reasonably had acted witness who 2) credible Spokane County; Schafer terminating his faith in em- that he had bonafide and reasonable belief 3) County. County; position ployment secured receipt acceptance was, therefore, a firm eligible for unemployment offer of employment compelling constitutes compensation.

cause for the termination holding Other cases that reasons not re Corn., Top Unemployment Oil ‍‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‍Co. lated one’s or conditions of Comp. Bd., (Pa.Cmwlth. A.2d 1209 employment may cause” 1985). *3 terminating for employment are: Gutier Div., Although is rez compe- there substantiаl and 693 P.2d 1344 tent supporting evidence v. Employment (Or.App.1985); Commission’s Sothras decide, Div., findings, this court must further as 616 (Or.App.1980); P.2d 524 Mee’s law, cause,” a in Bakery, Inc. Unemployment matter of whether Compen 1366(f), Review, sation Board requires context of I.C. 386, (Pa. 56 A.2d 72— reason(s) unemploy- a Super.1948). for claimant’s priоr employ- ment be connected his (Personal Eligibility Since I.C. 72-1366 employment, ment or as conditions Conditions) requires no longer urged by County. cause be employment, connected with one’s 1947, provided Prior to Idaho law that a this court will not such re-insert a clause. eligible claimant for was Accordingly, the of the decision Industri- long unemployed, surance benefits while as al Commission affirmed. not due to “[h]is [was] respondent. attorney Costs No fees employment the fact that he left his last awarded. without cause connected voluntarily employment 43- ...” I.C.A. DONALDSON, J., C.J., BISTL1NE, 2408(e) added). (emphasis Significantly, concur. employ- the words “connected with his SHEPARD, Justice, dissenting. by legislative ment” were removed amend- ment in presumption 1947. There is a facts The before the Commission were amended, once a any dispute. statute is Simply not substantial stated, meaning intended it to have a different claimant for had worked the asses- totally from that it amend- accorded before the sor’s office some time Fidelity ment. Lincoln employment. satisfied with that Deposit 489, inference, Maryland, 102 Co. does not contain even an Idaho record (1981); evidence, Intermountain 632 P.2d 678 much less that claimant was com- Care, Com’rs., Cty. Health v. Bd. pelled employment. Inc. leave that Claimant Nevertheless, 248, (Idaho App. P.2d 260 no such assertion. 688 makes 1984) (rev’d grounds, voluntarily employ- terminated his on other 109 claimant (1985); ment, believing see John more also 707 P.2d 410 he had secured desir- Compen- Morrell ‍‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‍employment Unemployment & Co. v. where he de- able Com., (a sation (S.D.1944) N.W.2d sired live. change legisla- in a statute is indicative of Hence, only obligation of the Com- intent).

tive pertinent apply was to law to mission Levine, departed facts. The Curran v. N.Y.2d those years established (Ct.App. by N.Y.S.2d N.E.2d from 40 of law as 1977), nearly and held that claimant’s belief that under facts identical hand, case at with a secured other constitut- the claimant had met he had voluntarily “good cause” for terminat- prospective employer and believed that she ed job, though ing had assessor’s of- been offered еven unemploy- was hence precise salary had not fice and entitled been fixed. compensation employee benefits. This Court Curran court held that an ment previous departs from all its decisions believing who she had also after law, evidently employ- area of the but not been offered a in this definite left relying upon dissent of expressly Bist- cause” J.J., Huntley, line and in Carlson v. Center purview cause within the of our statute for Independent Resources People, voluntary termination of employment; 712 P.2d 1161 McMunn, supra, the Court held that claim- ant’s living dissatisfaction in in a barracks This Court has continually held that atmosphere away town was a “good cause” for voluntarily terminating subjective reason purview unique within the our stat- ute purely personal does not extend to hence did not constitute unique reasons which are cause for voluntary termination оf McMunn v. Lands, Public 491 P.2d 1265 In Pyeatt, supra, the Court stated: “Her (1971); Bogus Clark v. Basin Recreation terminated her own Association, ‍‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‍free act for causes over which her (1967); Boodry v. Eddy Compa- Bakeries er obviously had no control and which had *4 ny, 88 Idaho 397 P.2d 256 As nothing to do with the conditions of her Court, late as this in Berger v. Nez employment. They purely personal were Sheriff, Perce subjective and reasons unique which were J., in opinion by an Huntley, held that when to employee.” the claimant and her husband were told that statutory change nepotism policy upon the in 1947 in the which depart- sheriff’s prohibit majority рurports the ment would to employment, their base its rationale and they resigned, obviously both in place such did not constitute at the time of all of good purview cause in the the of the above decisions statute to of this Court. Never- justify voluntary theless, their termination of em- the Court has сontinuously held ployment and hence unemployment good com- voluntary cause for termination pensation benefits were denied. permit so as to the award unemployment of contemplate benefits must per- more than Today majority the departs from the subjective sonal and unique reasons to the long-established Court’s “good rule that employee. cause” for terminating employ- ment within purview the of our statute enacting In in Idaho’s purely personal cannot include subjec- legislature Law the declared the tive reasons. past The Court in the hаs public policy in I.C. 72-1302: § obviously believed broadening the guide interpretation As a ap- scope of cause” to include matters plication Act, of public policy this the of outside scope the of would this state is declared to be as follows: place upon the Commission and this Court insecurity economic unemploy- due to impossible an burden establishing of ment is a serious menace to the health Hence, standard for cause.” the morals and people welfare of the of this Carlson, supra, held that claim- Court in state. Involuntary ant’s need to mоve to keep California to her subject therefore a of national and state family together did not constitute interest____ The achievement of social termination; cause for a voluntary in security requires protection against Pyeatt v. Idaho State University, greatest hazard of our economic life. (1977), the Court held provided by This encouraging can be em- that claimant’s need to move to Boise to ployers provide to more stable family maintain her unit and avoid divorce by systematic ment and the accumulation did not voluntary cause for providе of funds ... to benefits. termination; in Clark the held Court in- Clearly, legislature considering the motion sickness of the claimant while rid- voluntary ing in employer’s transportation provide and to to and from stability employment. work purely personal my constituted view unique interpretation reasons which the mаjority were to of the in and hence directly were not instant case contrary runs legislature.

policy by particular employee/claimant. It I enunciated see no encourage voluntary will rather termi- limit to the situations which the Commis- bring benefits, suggest nation of about sion award today stability employment. The result completely will at such state affairs be hardly encourage employers to, be with, can said to contrary odds the intent provide employment. more stable to legislature enacting our se- curity today overrules scheme. Smith v. As stated innumerable cases either without under- 520, 602 Employment, P.2d so, standing caring it does or without it (1979): so. does mean interpreted Statutes should legislature intended them what discharged Claimant was not legisla accomplish mean and what He employment. did not terminate his em- sought passage. their achieve ture ployment because of dissatisfaction “Moreover, enactments of the conditions of job or because com interpreted are accord with to be voluntarily quit He becausje reason.” State ex rel. mon sense and location!, he wanted another another Alarid, 790, 794, Newsom N.M. subjective, personal reasons which were (1977). When the lan unique to the ambiguous, we guage of a statute is I the decision of Com- would reverse and economic consider the social must mission. by a which would be effectuated results *5 meaning on of the statute. decision BAKES, J., concurs. West, v. P.2d Hеrndon (1964). grounds Policy and reason deter be utilized to ableness also meaning of the statute. Sum

mine the Dooley,

mers (1971). to, must look to are entitled

“We gath legislature

the intention of act, and whole when ered provision reading will work literal Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, STATE result, if a or an unreasonable absurd can intent reasonable PUGA, at, should so con Angel arrivеd the court Martinez Defendant-Appellant. to arrive at such intention ‍‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‍strue the act Small absurdity.” an rather than 16143. No. Jeter, 244 P. wood of Idaho. Appeals Court today has been the Commission Until 30, 1986. Oct. by the guided decisions regarding good cause applying the law terminating case, i.e., given that the cause

facts in

should be related personal and merely

could not unique to the

subjective reasons

Following today’s decision the unknown stan- apply free to some

will be involving

dard motivation, unique to or

feelings, desires