Goebel v Bank of the Commonwealth
Digest no. 10.101
Cite as: Goebel v Bank of the Commonwealth, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued March 15, 1978 (Docket No. 77-6525-AE).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Joyce Goebel
Employer: Bank of the Commonwealth
Docket no.: 77-6525-AE
Date of decision: March 15, 1978
View/download the full decision
HOLDING: When reasons for leaving employment are entirely subjective or an infringement on management prerogative, they do not establish good cause to quit attributable to the employer under Section 29(1)(a).
FACTS: Claimant quit her job with the Employer because of dissatisfaction with (1) the temperament and “strange” actions of her supervisor; (2) the amount of her recent salary increase; (3) cold temperatures in the office; and (4) language of coworkers not directed at her that she deemed offensive. After quitting her job, the Claimant filed for benefits. ALJ found that Claimant voluntarily quit her job with good cause attributable to the Employer. The Appeal Board reversed the ALJ’s decision because the Claimant did not establish good cause attributable to the employer for her quit. Claimant appealed to the Circuit Court.
DECISION: The Appeal Board’s decision is affirmed. Claimant is not entitled to benefits.
RATIONALE: The Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the Appeal Board without a reasoned opinion; the reasoning of the Appeal Board is as follows. The burden of showing good cause for voluntary quit attributable to the employer rests with the Claimant. From Claimant’s testimony, it appears that Claimant’s reasons for leaving her employment appear to be entirely subjective or an infringement on management prerogative. Furthermore, Claimant failed to provide evidence that she made effort to resolve the above problems before quitting her job. The evidence provided by the Claimant is insufficient for a finding of good cause attributable to the employer for leaving.
DIGEST AUTHOR: Chris Kang
DIGEST Student-Editor: Nick Phillips
DIGEST UPDATED: 8/14